On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is the same old argument that the hon. gentleman is involved in, and he is not completely uninvolved in this particular case because I suggest he had a responsibility. In dealing with this case let me point out some of the evidence to establish the character of Jan Paul Hankowski himself. I would refer the committee to the Senate hearing in which the lawyer for the petitioner was involved:
Q. Mrs. Hankowski, you were living with your husband where?
A. In Montreal.
Q. How long before you were married did you know him?
A. About a year.
Q. What is his occupation?
A. Freelance photographer.
Q. As such, does he have steady employment with an employer?
A. No, he works for many different people.
Q. Since you married him what have been his actions towards you, has he been a steady person?
A. No, he has been very unstable, and drinking most of the time, and certainly didn't contribute towards my support.
Q. Who is supporting you?
A. I am supporting myself.
Q. And you supported him?
A. I supported him mostly.
Q. Did he ever take money from you against your will?
A. Yes, X have seen him take money from my purse.
Q. I note you served at one time this petition on him in New York city. Why did you have to do that?
A. Because he was there at the time.
Q. Was this after the incident at the hotel-
Subtopic: MADELEINE-FRANC OISE HANKOWSKI