SC38 Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38)

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, October 20, 2003

¹

1540

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-Michel Roy)

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Le greffier

The Clerk

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

¹

1550

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

º

1600

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38)

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, October 20, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-Michel Roy): Honourable committee members, I see there is a quorum; we may now proceed with the election of the Chair. Are there any other nominations?

    The nominations are now complete.

[English]

    Mr. Tonks has moved that Paddy Torsney be elected chair of this committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I will now proceed to the election of the vice-chair for the government side.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I nominate Carole-Marie Allard.

[Translation]

    Le greffier: Are there any other nominations?

[English]

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I will now proceed to the election of the vice-chair on the opposition side.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Randy White.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare Mr. White elected vice-chair of the committee.

    I invite Ms. Torsney to take the chair.

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Thank you.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much for your support.

    In the last committee that examined this subject, other emotions were introduced.

[English]

    One is that the committee retain the services of two researchers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work.

    Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The second one, which we did last time as well, is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.

    Mr. Randy White: That's similar to before.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Next is that the witnesses be given--and it's open--ten minutes to make their opening statements, and during the questioning of the witnesses there be allocated ten minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter five minutes.

    Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: We have no problem with that.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: On witness expenses, we usually have a motion that reasonable travel accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives.

    Mr. Randy White: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We'll also have to get a budget.

    Next is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make necessary arrangements to provide for working meals. Given that we're meeting all night, it should be helpful.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Next is that 48 hours' notice be provided to the clerk of the committee on substantive motions.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Next is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only after they have been translated and made available in both official languages.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Great.

    Colleagues, I would like to see if it is possible for the clerk to start working on a list of witnesses whom people have already identified they would like to hear from.

    Inky Mark, who's a member of the committee, has sent me a letter--he's prescient perhaps--saying he would like Senator Kenny and Senator Nolan to appear before the committee, as well as CCRA officials, the RCMP commission, health representatives, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, immigration officials, the Canadian Police Association, educational representatives, and the Canadian Labour Congress.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Madam Chair, a number of members of this committee were present when the report was made.

    I would like to know whether there are plans for us to redo the entire process, in this instance for us to rehear all those persons who testified before the committee. Couldn't we introduce a motion stating that their testimony is entered into the record?

    The Chair: I believe that others in the House of Commons have done that and that all the information was

[English]

appended to the work of this committee.

    Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: Keeping in mind that much of our work was done on other drugs and not marijuana, the presentations by the witnesses before were more on the properties of marijuana, as opposed to the bill itself--the penalties, the aspect of marijuana grow operations, and so on. You would probably get a different presentation from the police today than you did before. I just caution you on that.

    I don't think we necessarily have to go through all the medical reasons why and why not.... But the bill itself is substantially different from what we were talking about as a committee.

    The Chair: But if the witnesses have appeared before, I hope we will ask them to be very specific and speak to the bill, rather than things they've already been asked.

    Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I have just a couple of questions. First of all, when will we be meeting?

    The Chair: That will also be part of the work. We haven't decided that either.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I agree that we previously dealt with the issue in the broadest way, and we dealt with everything under the sun. It was huge. This is now very specific, which is important. I know there are lots of people who want to be heard on the specifics of this bill, both pro and con. We've had lots of inquiries in my office, so we're in the process of drawing up a list. Should it be forwarded to the researchers or the clerk?

    The Chair: The clerk will work with the researchers as well, but the clerk has to approach them.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

    Have we determined whether or not we're going to be travelling? I know we're under a big time constraint. This is a real catch-22, because on the one hand I want to see the bill dealt with as quickly as possible, but I also know there are a lot of people who want to be heard specifically, not just in general. It puts us in a really difficult bind. None of the motions here deals with travel, so maybe we should talk about that.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: I don't know when the next budget committee meeting will be. We haven't asked for a budget, and we don't have a budget yet, obviously, because we haven't been a committee. We will have to look at teleconferencing and panels of people wherever possible, to hear the maximum number of witnesses.

    The clerk has given you a list of people who have approached him already to appear before the committee. Some of them may already be on your own lists. That's the one that tops with B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

    People can also submit written testimony; they don't all have to appear. We'll probably have to be somewhat judicious in choosing a good representation of the different perspectives and maybe not hear absolutely everybody who asks. Every committee has to do some kind of culling.

    You've also been distributed a committee meeting schedule for September to December 2003, by the clerk.

    Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: On the witnesses, I've given a list to the clerk here. But I should tell you that the B.C. Solicitor General has asked to come before us; a number of the provincial attorneys general; interestingly enough, the Canadian Real Estate Association, which has a very legitimate concern about the grow operations in this country, which cause considerable damage to houses; and a number of other people.

    I don't feel constrained at all by some kind of time limitation. I know everybody talks about the House proroguing on November 7. I'm not sitting here saying we've got to rush on this, nor am I thinking about holding it up. One the other hand, we have to look at this. It's a very important bill that's going through the House of Commons. I'm not going to rush.

    The Chair: On that, this committee won't make a decision on whether it rises or not, but if it rises, we don't have the ability to meet any more. I'm quite concerned about what would happen with those issues if we prorogued.

    Ms. Libby Davies: If it rises, we could.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, my colleague Randy can well say that the purposes of the bill are different today, but we nevertheless prepared a report in which we gave our view on the decriminalization of marijuana. So I take it for granted that we won't start over... I had these witnesses before me; they testified and I don't need to hear them again.

    I think you have to be very clear on the aspect you refer to, that is propriety, but I can't imagine that people who have already appeared before us would come again and tell us that they are for or against this question. If we start repeating ourselves in this way, we'll never be finished.

[English]

    The Chair: Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: I think we agree on that.

    Quite frankly, Madam Chair, I don't think anybody's happy with this bill--if you listen to the people on the left side of the agenda down there--

    The Chair: Libby's looking for it.

    Mr. Randy White: --and Libby will probably tell you that. I have lots of discussions with Mark Emery and other people in the Marijuana Party, and they're not any happier than the people on the other side of the agenda.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Colleagues, can I suggest a couple of things? There's CCSA, Michel Perron and his group, which has stakeholders from various sides of the issue. We could ask them to appear specifically on the bill and also get some of the more obvious witnesses, like the Canadian Police Association and CREA, the real estate people, as well as the provincial attorneys general or a representative if they have a common position within the group. I suggest we ask them now to appear as soon as possible.

    Libby.

¹  (1550)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Actually, we had a very good presentation through the Library of Parliament last week. There were Eugene Oscapella from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy and I think Patricia Baird from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. She actually dealt a lot with the studies around driving while using marijuana. It was very interesting. There was also a police officer representing the police association, not the chiefs. So I think those three as well would be very good witnesses, and they're all within the area.

    The Chair: They're within Ottawa and could appear fairly promptly.

    It's Patricia Begin.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But we'll still have an opportunity to forward other names, right?

    The Chair: Oh, of course. I'm just saying, if there's a way to schedule some of these people who are within Ottawa this week, why not get the ball rolling and at least hear some of the testimony? It shouldn't be that hard if they've already made some presentations.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): If I understand correctly, we'll have the opportunity during the week to submit other names to you through the clerk. Is that correct?

    The Chair: Yes, as soon as possible.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: That's good.

[English]

    The Chair: Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: It's not just a representative of the solicitors general. In particular, B.C. has about 45% of the problem in marijuana grow-ops, and the B.C. solicitor general is up to his neck in those.

    As well, it is time we brought several outspoken Americans in here if we can. I'm sick and tired of reading in the newspaper about what they're going to do and what they're not going to do, and I think it's time this committee had some officials from the States in here to tell us what their position is on Canada moving in that direction.

    The Chair: Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I'm very reluctant at the idea of basing our marijuana policy on the intentions of another country. The policy of that country may prove different. I believe we must concentrate on what we have to do here. What the Americans are doing, will do or would do shouldn't determine the policy of our country.

    The Chair: Ms. Allard.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, the committee members who went to the United States heard highly varied versions on the question. In my opinion, we should form our own consensus and let the Americans react to what we've decided. Contrary to what Mr. White says, I believe we've consulted the Americans. We know perfectly well that there wasn't a consensus in the United States either on what the marijuana policy should be.

    I remember very well a stay in Washington and New York during which we heard opposing versions. Consequently, I don't think that hearing the testimony of Americans would enable us to achieve anything here in Canada.

[English]

    The Chair: Kevin.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

    First of all, when we went down to the United States, we didn't spend a lot of time questioning them regarding marijuana. We were talking about safe injection sites; we were talking about hard drugs; we were talking about all kinds of things, but not a lot about....

    Remember, this whole marijuana thing wasn't even dumped on our lap until much later in the process. It was brought up and we did talk to it, and we don't need repetition. What we do need is a clear indication as to what trade implications there may be with decriminalization. We need to at least understand what their response is going to be. Certainly, whether or not we have people come in or whether we go down there--it's probably just as easy to fly down there--I think it's important that we understand that part of what we're trying to do.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'm a new member of this committee, so I hope my colleagues will be indulgent.

    I think it would be inappropriate to invite our southern neighbours to come and appear. We have mechanisms here for learning about American policy on any subject whatever. We could easily ask the appropriate Canadian institutions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, to come and see us and to talk to us about American policies. Moreover, not long ago, another committee invited the American ambassador to come and appear before it, and the American ambassador refused to do so on the ground that it was not appropriate. I agree with him.

    So I hope we'll stop trying to invite American authorities to come and appear before our committee. If we want to learn their position, we should ask Canadian authorities which are in communication with the Americans to appear.

[English]

    The Chair: Can I make a suggestion here? Everyone is going to get their witness list in here, and we're going to have to make some decisions based on when we can have meetings and what have you as well. We certainly could have Justice officials and Foreign Affairs officials. The last time, Mauril, they did appear and speak on what the situation was in Europe and in the United States and on some of the thinking that's taking place at international meetings. We could get the benefit of some of their ideas, and we could definitely have health officials as appropriate.

    So why don't we issue a call to them, as well as to CREA--because of the grow-op situation you've already identified them, and I know they have lawyers here in Ottawa--and to CCSA. If we can get some of those meetings scheduled for this week, then that will at least get the ball rolling, and people will understand what other witnesses they want for next week. Once everyone has their list, we can go through and see where there's complementarity and where there are other people we need.

    Why don't we try to schedule that meeting for a little bit later in the week, when we have an idea, so we don't have to bounce each and every witness back and forth in this forum? Can I ask everyone to get their list in to the clerk, perhaps for Wednesday morning, and that we try to schedule a meeting for Thursday to discuss the list? Is that reasonable?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: How about Wednesday noon?

    The Chair: Wednesday noon is good.

    Then we'll circulate all of those. As well, we'll ask CCSA and those other people to present and give us their ideas. They're all here in Ottawa; it shouldn't be so hard. As you say, maybe some of them have already made a presentation.

    I have Kevin, Richard, and Carole.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: The last time we were talking about the marijuana issue, we were right in the middle of writing the report when the minister came out and announced what they were going to do, basically decriminalization. If the answer is that we can just bring in another department to tell us what the Americans are going to do, I don't think that suffices. Obviously, if the minister is going to pre-empt what the committee says, it's very likely that the minister.... There could be any department that came forward, and how are they going to speak for the Americans?

    We went down there before. It's just across to Washington; it isn't a major trip. In fact, it's probably a lot less expensive to travel to Washington than it is to travel to Winnipeg or to Vancouver. I don't think it's satisfactory at all to simply say, well, let's have someone from one of our departments come in and tell us what the Americans' response to it is. They're our biggest trading partner and we have the most to lose, so I think we need to at least look at it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Richard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I was a bit surprised to hear you say that we would be meeting again next Thursday. I didn't know we had decided on the date of our future meetings. That surprised me a bit because, as you know, the Justice Committee, of which a number of us are members, sits from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursdays. There will also be a number of other committee meetings. I have the list that you distributed. If those committees sit, who will be able to sit here at the same time?

    The Chair: It was only a suggestion. I nevertheless believe it's necessary to meet in order to decide on the witness list. I thought I understood that you were available from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: That's false. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights sits from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. For your information, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights sits on Tuesdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Wednesday afternoons from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. and Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    The Chair: All right. I'm here on Friday. And you?

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No. However, I'm here on Monday.

    The Chair: Special committees can also sit at night, if you wish.

    Ms. Allard, the floor is yours.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Madam Chair, this is not clear.

    It seems to me that the purpose of this bill is to decriminalize possession of certain quantities of marijuana. So we'll have to discuss quantities. We'll also have to discuss fines that will be imposed on those who grow plants on their properties and those who grow large quantities. Am I mistaken? That seems to me to be quite simple. Randy always has good suggestions, but I don't understand why he's suggesting that we hear the Canadian Real Estate Association. What's the connection with our study of the bill? Am I mistaken in saying that we're examining the scope of the bill? Is it more than I think?

[English]

    The Chair: Ultimately, that's for the committee to decide. But, clearly, we now have a bill that's less than the majority of the committee's response and more than the minority of the committee's response on the decriminalization of marijuana. So when the witnesses come, they should be focusing on the content of the bill. In addition, there's the sentencing on grow operations. So there are the two pieces of the bill. We heard from various witnesses that they desired some more action on that front, and that's one I'm particularly interested in seeing implemented as quickly as possible.

    I have Randy, Libby, and Kevin on my list.

    Mr. Randy White: I think you have to look at it this way. This is a piece of legislation that has come before a special committee that was assembled to examine it. At least four of the people on this committee have not heard anything as far as previous marijuana presentations are concerned. You just can't presume that what we heard in Frankfurt, which wasn't much on marijuana, I must say, can be digested from the people who were there and put into a bill and accepted. Unfortunately, you have to have some repetition if the members aren't the same, out of courtesy to the members who are there.

    The other thing is that we're talking about penalties for grow operations. I would suggest to you that people in the real estate business, for instance, may think we're not looking at the right thing as far as penalties go. They have other suggestions in addition to fines, summonses, and so on. Because it's in a bill doesn't mean we're going to debate just the format of that bill--in other words, x number of grams or x number of plants and so on. We could come up with something else. I don't think we should just look at what was in the past and what is before us, but also at what can be in the future.

[Translation]

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I'd like to ask another question, Madam Chair.

    I hear my Canadian Alliance colleagues repeat that the marijuana question was referred to the committee a bit late. Could we check the date on which that was done and know which witnesses testified before us, without talking about marijuana?

[English]

    The Chair: It was referred to us when we were in Halifax. I think that was in April. We were in Washington in June and New York.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Because in Washington it was there.

    The Chair: Next is Libby, followed by Kevin and Paul.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I think we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. We're going to submit names for witnesses.

    We should try to agree on a time to meet, because that's really important. From 11 until 1 on Mondays is for special committees. Is that a time we could meet? How about Thursday afternoon, so that we're not conflicting with the justice committee? Are those two possibilities?

    The Chair: Is it also possible that on Tuesday afternoon we could get CCSA or somebody else to come?

    Ms. Libby Davies: We have the prostitution committee on Tuesday.

    The Chair: And the vote is tomorrow. All right.

    Ms. Libby Davies: As well, Tuesday is our other committee, isn't it, at 4?

    The problem with the evening meetings is that we may well run into votes, so they'll end up being pushed back. Can we look at the Monday and the Thursday?

    The Chair: Sure.

    I personally will have one scheduling conflict next Monday morning, but after that I'm totally here. I'm good most of this week, and I'm here right through until Friday, so if there's any other time....

    Is Wednesday afternoon good for anybody?

    A voice: No, there's the justice committee.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Right. Why don't I see justice on there?

    Yes

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has two periods reserved for it, on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. However, we are inundated with bills by the government. So we have to sit five times a week. We also sit from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. on those two same days.

    We're all here on Monday afternoon. I would therefore suggest that we reserve Mondays from 11:00 a.m. until fairly late on the question of prostitution. I suggest we reserve the entire day, morning and afternoon, from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., for this committee.

[English]

    The Chair: Is it possible that this week you could switch a justice committee, or not attend a justice committee, to do this, to get a quick state of affairs on this bill?

    Mr. Richard Marceau: It's child pornography--

    The Chair: Which is a topic I'm interested in.

    Is it possible for people to meet on Wednesday night? That is the special committee time, Wednesday night from 5:30 to 7:30. Yes, there could be votes, but we could at least get some briefings on Wednesday night.

    Okay. Everyone's going to have issues, but at least we can get the majority to hear the testimony that'll be available.

    Second, are you meeting Thursday afternoon?

    A voice: Justice, do you mean?

    The Chair: No, you have two sessions in the morning.

    Can we meet from 3 o'clock until 4:30 or 5 o'clock? Some people have flights.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Well, for those going back west, I know their flights are out at 5 o'clock or something like that.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I'm usually still here by Friday.

    The Chair: If you could see if you could attend at some time on that day, that would be helpful. Perhaps everyone could just get to the clerk what will work, and we'll try to get that.

    If we could at least meet on Thursday afternoon to help define the witness list, that would be helpful.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Are you still saying Wednesday night?

    The Chair: I'd like to see if we could get as many people as possible for Wednesday night to at least get us started on a briefing for this.

    A voice: This Wednesday?

    The Chair: Yes. I have another thing, but I'll cancel it.

    A voice: I have three things, but I'll cancel them.

    The Chair: Oh, come on, you guys, ante up all your things.

    So Wednesday night we're going to meet and we're going to try to have at least a briefing on this bill and a couple of the witnesses.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Hang on, this Wednesday is a bad night.

    The Chair: It's a 10-year anniversary for a bunch of us, but that's....

    It's not all night; it's just until 7 o'clock or 7:30. Yours will be a late night. You guys can hang out until later.

    Mr. Randy White: Let's try this again. What are we saying here? Monday?

    The Chair: First we're saying Wednesday night. I'm trying to get something this week.

    Ms. Libby Davies: One time, at this point.

    The Chair: Yes.

    I'm trying to get Wednesday night from 5:30 to 7:30, and I'm trying to grab at least an hour on Thursday afternoon so that we can discuss the witness list. We'll have a copy of what everyone's submitted, and we'll see where there's some paring down.

    Mr. Randy White: For one hour.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Randy White: I'll be away Wednesday.

    The Chair: But you can leave everything in Kevin's capable hands.

    So if everyone would see what's on their schedule and what's movable, that would be really helpful. We'll have to figure out what to do with that justice committee.

    For Thursday, do you want to try 3:15? Does that help?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, can we agree on next Monday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and invite people now?

    The Chair: I can't on Monday the 27th, but the following Monday, like today, I'm available.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Go ahead then. In any case, you told us, with that charming smile, to change things. Consequently, Madam Chair, that goes for everyone.

    The Chair: I must change other things.

[English]

    I'll do my best.

    Randy.

    Mr. Randy White: This week, it's Wednesday from 5:30 to 7:30 and Thursday it's 3:15 to 4:15--or 4:30?

    The Chair: It'll depend on the committee, but let's just say 4:15. Does that work?

    And let's be clear, we might not even be able to get any witnesses for Monday, because that's pretty quick, from Thursday to Monday. But we will try to get some witnesses for Wednesday night to give us a good briefing on the bill. With the clerk, we'll see what we can get.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much everyone.

[English]

    We'll make sure we have e-mails for the clerk, and everyone can get their lists together as soon as possible.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: When do we know about the budget? Does that come tomorrow?

    The Chair: In terms of the budget, do you want us to try to draft up a budget and get something in for Thursday on the off chance that...? We definitely need the budget for the things we've covered, but we could try to see if there's a travel budget. I have trouble believing there would be, but....

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: If it's a quickie to Washington....

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: For the use of the committee, I believe the liaison subcommittee that handles budgets is meeting on Thursday, but it's--

    The Chair: Or the Board of Internal Economy, direct.

    I will talk to you, Randy, if we need some approval on a budget, or at least some sketching out of something.

    Ms. Libby Davies: But you're making an assumption that it's all here, right?

    The Chair: At this point in time we still need a budget for here, so we'll have to make some kind of an assumption and get it approved by the committee, hopefully even on Wednesday. But we'll give a couple of scenarios for Wednesday.

    Does that work?

    The committee meeting is adjourned.