text: Once the Senate has deliberated and passed amendments, and sent them back to the House, let’s assume the House sends the bill back. At what stage would you say the Senate’s proper “sober-second-thought” role turns into an improper game of table tennis with the House?
  A: I’m going to start by saying I think there are always three options. One is to play Ping-Pong. Another is to let the bill languish and die. And a third is to accept the will of the democratically elected House of Commons. I suppose there’s a fourth one, which is this very rarely used process of a joint [House-Senate] conference.
  I don’t have a crystal ball about what’s going to happened, but I can tell you that I’m thinking about this a lot. As of today, I believe that, putting aside the possibility of a joint conference, but looking at this bill and any of the amendments that have been put forward, I don’t believe there is an incredible abuse of Canadians in what have been put before us. I think our job is to give consideration and best advice, and I think we’ve done that with respect to the constitutionality [of Bill C-14]. We’re doing that with respect to some safeguards.
  When it comes back I suspect I will find that, with the knowledge that it will probably go back to the Supreme Court for a ruling one way or another, that there is nothing so abusive in [the legislation] that I would think the Senate should step in.
  Let me see if I’m hearing you right. You’re saying this should be a short Ping-Pong rally. The bill has come to you once, you’ll send it back to the House, it will comes back again, and you should pass it at that point. Is that what you’re leaning toward?