Hon. Diane F. Griffin: I wish to ask a question, Your Honour.

Senator Griffin: Thank you, Senator Gold. I have a question that’s related to process rather than to policy related to this constitutional amendment. In the Senate, we often talk about ensuring sober second thought when it comes to reviewing and protecting rights under the charter; and in this case, the motion proposes to remove the constitutional right, for better or for worse, that was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. As you noted, there was a constitutional debate on the amendments to remove the Prince Edward Island ferry service and replace it with the Confederation Bridge. I don’t think you noted, though, that the debate on this amendment occurred over four sitting days. I’m a little concerned that we might be rushing here. You asked for speedy delivery of the results.

By the way, the other constitutional amendments that you cited, some of those, of course, were referred to committee. So in all of those cases I believe the Senate was sincerely providing sober second thought.

The question I have is: As a matter of procedural fairness, should Canadian Pacific Railway be afforded the opportunity to make its views known in the Senate prior to extinguishing its constitutional right? Even worse, what precedent does this set? Thank you.