[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 11, 1997
.1107 
[Translation]
The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Order! I call this meeting to order. The committee will deal with two matters: first, future business, namely travel plans and itinerary; and second, the schedule for the next meetings.
[English]
Our first item of business, if we may, is to look at the travel schedule for our study. We received five different suggestions, which are indicated on the chart prepared by the clerk.
[Translation]
So we have five different suggestions: those of Ms Phinney, Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Leroux, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Arseneault.
[English]
I'd like to explain a couple of points.
[Translation]
If we follow Mr. Bélanger's suggestion, in some cases, the committee would split itself between two centres, for instance between a small centre and the city of Halifax itself, between Moncton and Shediac or between Montreal and Trois-Rivières, which means we would have to have two sets of receivers, equipment, etc. That may be much more expensive and make all the difference.
As for Ms Phinney's suggestion, it would be more costly to go to some of those cities, for instance to Cape Breton or Grossemore. It is surely much more expensive to go there than to major centres.
Here we have two alternative but similar suggestions.
[English]
There are two alternatives there that meet each other pretty well, one suggested by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Arseneault, and Mr. Leroux.
I've spoken to the committee researchers. The past experience has been that the further you get from the large centres, the smaller the representation is from witnesses, because it's harder for them to reach these places, and most of the institutions are concentrated in the large centres.
If I have a bias, it would be towards the alternative set out by Messrs. Leroux, O'Brien and Arseneault - rather than the smaller centres - because of the difficulties explained by our researcher and our clerk.
.1110
It's just logistics and also the question
[Translation]
to reach the greatest number of people possible. Mr. Lemieux, who has worked on this committee for a long time, tells me that generally, when you go to smaller centres, institutions and others find it much more difficult to get there.
[English]
We just wouldn't reach the kind of audience we want to reach.
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I've given some very serious thought to the proposal for travel. Representing the Reform Party perspective on this, I must say that I am not going to be on the trip, and quite frankly, the expenditure of $200,000 at this time is in my judgment very unwise.
I suggest it's unwise because I believe the committee can accomplish its objectives here in Ottawa. I suggest that taking the $200,000 to travel is really window dressing. I think it's a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
I've had discussions with my House leader and our party whip, and although this will undoubtedly be coming to the House for approval, my party will not support this expenditure.
I just want you to understand that so that there's no misunderstanding.
The Chairman: Mr. Peric.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I respect Mr. Abbott's concerns about expenditures. Nobody wants to spend taxpayers' money.
I'm somehow frustrated with your position on travelling - but this is you decision and the decision of your party.
But how can we - let me calm down -
The Chairman: Take your time. Be cool.
Mr. Janko Peric: - get public input? Either we bring them here or we go to them. Either way, it's going to cost. How can we develop the cultural policy for this country if we don't do something, and if we do something, it costs money?
Fortunately, this country is huge. Fortunately, it's big. Somehow, we as Canadians have so far not paid enough attention to our own Canadian culture.
I fully endorse the idea of getting public input. I don't know if we're going to hear from the grassroots if we travel only to large centres like Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and so on. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a balance, to go to maybe one or two large cities and then to smaller cities.
Somehow we are ignoring artistic communities in smaller cities. Then, when something happens, we are amazed. Why didn't we didn't know about a small place like St. Jacobs, Ontario, for instance? It's an invisible place on the map, but culturally it's so active. It contributes to our Canadian cultural industry.
Let me finish by endorsing the idea to go to talk to the Canadian artistic community and to have that balance by avoiding going only to the metropolitan cities in Canada.
Mr. Abbott, we probably have the same position, that we shouldn't spend taxpayers' money where it is not necessary, but if you feel your party has money left, maybe we should approach them and ask them for a contribution to this committee.
.1115
The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London - Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first I have a couple of observations.
I appreciate what you said about the economy of going to the large places. I would hope that whenever this happens there might be a way to blend that thought with going to other centres nearby. Cape Breton comes to mind. Of course I may be biased, with my name, but it is a centre of Celtic culture, and since that is one of the founding cultures of Canada on the coat of arms it would nice to try to get to that region somehow. So that's a thought.
I have a question for Mr. Abbott, through you. I don't know whether it's rhetorical or if it's a real question, if he wants to answer.
Is this somehow a new position of the Reform Party at this point? I know he would not be playing politics just before an election, but I want to note that, and I want to know, seriously, whether this is a change. The chair was parliamentary secretary for the environment when I was on that standing committee. I'm not sure whether Jim was on that at one point. We had at least two Reform members who travelled with us throughout the country. You can't appreciate environmental problems sitting in Ottawa.
I think one of the observations your party has made and I have also made as a Liberal and I agree with is that we can't fall into the trap of thinking if we just bring everybody to Ottawa we can learn all the information. We have to go to see people in their own venues, in their own milieux, whether we're talking about the environment or we're talking about culture.
So I think there is a justification for federal members to leave Ottawa on a serious mission and to go to the various regions. I would regard it as just as important to do that and to try to understand our culture better as it was when we did it for environmental reasons and the Reform participated. I don't know if it's a new position of the party, but I hope not, because I think it would be penny wise and pound foolish to think we can bring all of the groups to Ottawa, the centre of all knowledge about things Canadian, and that would do it when you're trying to understand any problem in our country.
I just throw that out, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): I like the idea of going to Banff instead of Edmonton. Banff is a symbolic site in Canada. During our tour, the discussion on culture could read a certain level. A meeting in that part of the country could be significant from that perspective.
However, I think that of the cities mentioned, not one of them is part of what you could call Quebec's francophone society, which truly represents... Montreal is a francophone city, but it is also a multilingual city whose culture... I would have liked to have seen a city like Rivière-du-Loup or Trois-Pistoles on the list. In Rivière-du-Loup, there is a Victor-Lévy Beaulieu. Perhaps we could find a day that we could spend in a truly francophone Québécois milieu.
When you think of it, Montreal provides a very unique picture of Canadian culture.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier, Lib.): [Inaudible] ...in Pohénégamook.
Mr. Paul Crête: Pohénégamook would be even better. I would have no problem organizing that. But seriously, I would have liked a place that is 100% francophone. I think the tour should include that.
As far as the last three are concerned, it is more a matter of making technical adjustments. However, I do truly hope that we can go to Banff and add a place that is a 100% francophone to the list of places in Quebec.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, there is a simple question on which I would like to hear your views. Given travel costs and other incidentals, if, instead of going to Montreal, we went to Quebec City, would that city be culturally acceptable to you?
Mr. Paul Crête: It is a symbolic place...
The Chairman: Symbolic at the same time.
Mr. Paul Crête: ...important and is a francophone culture. It would not be as interesting as Rivière-du-Loup,...
Some members: Oh! oh!
Mr. Paul Crête: ...but the Montreal culture, for instance, ...
The Chairman: Yes, that's true.
Mr. Paul Crête: ...is another milieu. You will hear representations from the anglophone minority and from allophones who have cultural activities and who will not go to Quebec City.
.1120
I think there ought to be another place, which could be Quebec City, but that we should keep Montreal on the list because of its very unique culture, which is very different from the 100% francophone Quebec culture. In Montreal, you have a much more multilingual Quebec.
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur, Lib.): Yes, I agree with Mr. Crête; we should try to find another spot. I don't think we should cancel the visit to Montreal, but perhaps we could add... I think Mr. Bélanger gave the example of Montreal and Trois-Rivières. We could even hold our hearings in Rimouski and Dalhousie in New Brunswick, which are not far from each other.
An honourable member: From the Gaspé.
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: With regard to whether we travel or not, Mr. Chairman, we had that discussion in committee. I don't recall any Reform members mentioning at the time that they would not participate.
I want to make a quick comment on that aspect for Mr. Abbott, although I'm not trying to change his mind.
As Mr. O'Brien indicated, it seems contradictory that the Reform Party said that they came to Ottawa with the intention of bringing the government to the people, that they wanted to let the people see how government functions. By going out to the various areas of Canada, it not only permits more witnesses to bring in more local flavour, it allows the general public to see us in action - and I refer to the trips we went on.
I know Mr. Abbott was with the natural resources committee at the same time I was, and I refer to some of the articles that appeared in the local media that you would never see in The Globe and Mail or La Presse, The Gazette or The Ottawa Citizen. These papers wouldn't report on these things. So I think there is a value here. It also allows the Canadian people to see us in action, rather than just in that thirty-second clip from Question Period.
I think this is an educational tool, not only for the MPs but also for the public. Whenever any parliamentary committee comes into my area, I make it a point to try to arrange that students are present during the committee hearings so that they can get the flavour of what's going on. If there are MPs visiting and they have time in their schedule, I try to arrange for them to meet with some of those students or to go into the schools. I think travelling is a golden opportunity to educate our Canadian public about where their taxpayers' dollars are going.
So I would certainly be in favour of travelling, and I would certainly think that we should look at some small centres. Whether or not it's difficult logistically, I think there are more small centres than large centres. We should therefore take a look at the culture that is found in the small centres and find out about some of the difficulties the small centres have. We all have small areas, small municipalities in our regions. They all have museums and exhibition centres that are having funding problems. So I would go along with having some small centres added in with the large ones. There has to be a mix.
As well, since the province of New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province, I want to see the members come in to see how things actually function there. I think it would be an eye-opener.
The Chairman: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Arseneault? Apart from Dalhousie, New Brunswick, are all of the centres on your list of suggestions the main centres in the various provinces?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: Yes.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting that we add smaller centres? When we talk about Toronto, should we go to a small centre in addition to Toronto, or should we substitute for it?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: I think we should look at substituting, but not at substituting just for the sake of it. I think there are some small cultural centres, and I think the national associations are going to make a point of making their presentations at one site or another. The provincial associations will be there as well, and they will all be represented in the small centres.
It doesn't hurt for these associations to come to small centres and to listen to some of the problems going on there. It might be an eye-opener for the provincial associations and the national associations to come into Dalhousie or Campbellton, New Brunswick, to see what's going on. It might be an eye-opener for them to see what's going on with the Restigouche Gallery, what the local museum is doing to raise money, and things of that nature.
.1125
The local museum down the street from my office is selling ice cream all summer to raise money to make ends meet, so they can hire a full-time curator to make sure their museum is open all year. Is the national association aware of that? Is the national association aware of the private partnerships going on between the cultural entities in the small communities?
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we started discussing this two weeks ago when we received the list of suggested destinations, and at the time, I had suggested that we add a visit to a place very close to the major centres in order to avoid adding a full day. For example, I was not familiar with the geography of Vancouver to suggest a neighbouring spot, but in the case of Alberta, I had suggested that Edmonton be replaced by Calgary because it was not very far from Banff. We could hold our hearings during the day and in the evening. That is what I thought of when I made my suggestions. The same goes for Gravelbourg and Saint-Boniface, which are close enough to the suggested cities. That would also give us the opportunity to meet with Canadian members of the francophonie.
As for Ontario, I think we will have to make more than one trip. We will certainly have to go to Toronto, which is Ontario's main cultural centre. We should perhaps also go to cities that are a little further, such as Guelph, which is still within a reasonable distance, or to the Northern part of the province. But perhaps we should think of making two trips.
As for Eastern Canada, I had suggested Halifax and another smaller centre. I would certainly support the idea of going to Cape Breton. As for Quebec, I feel the same way as Mr. Crête. That is why I had thought Trois-Rivières would fill the bill, since it is not too far from Montreal and is nearly 100% francophone. People breathe French there.
I would certainly agree to go to Rivière-du-Loup. I could go and visit my relatives in Pohénégamook. It is true that Rivière-du-Loup has a certain cachet that you don't find elsewhere, including Trois-Rivières.
That said, I would like us to think about the ``major centre-smaller centre'' strategy as long as the hearings are held the same day, one in the morning and one in the evening. That would not entail additional costs.
Secondly, I would like us to bear in mind that we must hold hearings in Ottawa. I do not think that travelling elsewhere in the country means we do not have to meet with national groups and institutions. We will have to hold hearings here. I'm not saying that just because it is my turf.
There's one last point, and it is the business of people not wanting to travel. We are used to the Reform Party not being a member of this committee and things have run fairly smoothly. We could go on like that.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Jim Abbott: We obviously have some significant differences of opinion, but I do appreciate the tone of our discussion and the questions that have been asked.
The Reform party historically, at least in the last 3.5 years we have been here, have travelled for a purpose. For example, as Mr. Arseneault noted, I was on the natural resources committee on the clear-cut. It was a particular job we were doing in response to something that, again, I had travelled to Vancouver to attend a meeting with the members of the European Union that really spawned that particular clear-cut study. I don't mean that I spawned it; the meeting with the members ended up spawning it.
We have absolutely no difficulty travelling and going to places where things are actually going to be accomplished. But having also travelled with the finance committee during the pre-budget hearings in eastern Canada, I consider that, as well intentioned as the pre-budget hearings were, they really were window dressing. Whether we were in Charlottetown or Lunenburg it didn't make any difference; we heard from the same group of college professors or whoever it was that were coming and making the presentations.
Unfortunately, I was not in attendance when the mandate of this committee was struck. That was my responsibility and my fault. But in taking a look at the mandate of the committee, I'm very, very soft in my support, because I'm not really sure you can define culture any more than you can define love.
.1130
I take a look, for example, at the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, I'm unilingual - and I do say unfortunately - but I've made a point of travelling, and trying to listen and learn, in Quebec, and there is a significant difference, in my humble outside judgment, between the culture of Montreal and the culture of Quebec City. I've never had the privilege of travelling to the Saguenay, but my wife and I did spend a week travelling around the Gaspé, again to try to learn. There is a difference in the perception of culture, in my judgment, between even the people of Quebec City and the people in the Gaspé.
I can report with some authority about British Columbia, because I've lived there all but ten years of my life. The response you would get from people in Vancouver would be night and day compared with the response you would get from people in Prince Rupert; and again, that would be by contrast with Kelowna or Prince George or Fort St. John.
I take a look at Ontario. If indeed we are trying to get some public input, would the perception of Canadian culture be the same in Thunder Bay as in North Bay or Peterborough, or would there not be major differences between the concerns of people in Windsor and those of the people in Guelph as compared with those of the people in Toronto?
I'm not really sure there is any purpose to doing this, but if there really were a purpose to doing this, I suggest in fact the travel should not be restricted to one day here in one province and one day there in another province. As I say, take a look at Ontario. The concerns there are in Windsor with the encroachment of the U.S. influence versus the concerns there would be in Thunder Bay are absolutely night and day.
In exactly the same friendly tone, the same light tone as Mr. Brien was suggesting that perhaps Reform is taking this position as a pre-election position, I would suggest perhaps the Liberals are wanting to travel around, wanting to be seen as being in action, wanting to try to define Canadian culture, and perhaps this would be seen by some people who would maybe be less generous than myself as being a pre-election ploy to move this issue forward for the Liberals.
That's the background to our decision.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Paul Crête: Well, regardless of whether we are in preelection mode, it is in the best interest of all of us that people understand what Canadian culture is right now and recognize what characterizes each region of this country and what they can expect for the future. It is very important, regardless of what happens politically. I think it is important to choose a good sample of places to visit, so that by the end of our tour, we have a good idea of what is going on on the cultural front.
Earlier on, someone made the comparison with love. Well, love is something you experience on a daily basis and not in the clouds. Culture isn't in the clouds either. We must be careful to not let ourselves be influenced solely by very structured official lobby groups. They have their place, they are present and that is to be expected, but we must speak with ordinary Canadians about their life in various parts of the country. I would be willing to bet that Quebeckers and Canadians are politically astute enough to know the difference between what is preelection propaganda and an opportunity for them to have their say on government initiatives for the next few years.
[English]
The Chairman: If I may intervene briefly, I would like to say, Mr. Abbott, that this was a discussion that was brought forward, and the parliamentary secretary will testify to it that it's something that, since the minister has been in place, she has felt our committee should be doing. There has been a lot of questioning. There has been a tremendous impact on our culture from the trade changes in the world, with the WTO, NAFTA and so forth, which are a constant debate. There's the whole impact of the new technologies on our culture.
.1135
From the time she became a minister she started to tell both me and the parliamentary secretary that this is something our committee should be doing. We couldn't do it because we had the copyright legislation before us, but we have time now. It seems to me the question begs itself to be addressed.
Sure, you could make the point that it's an electoral ploy. I don't see it that way, because if there's an election this year, we'll barely have started this work. We'll barely have travelled if there's an election this year. If we were looking at it as an electoral ploy, it would not be very smart on our part to start it just as the election might be called.
But we have to start. I don't think we should debate whether or not we'll do it, because the committee has already decided to do it. So I think that subject is done.
Mr. Jim Abbott: I was explaining our position.
The Chairman: We've also made the decision that the worst thing we could do is sit here like the elite and let everybody come to us, as Mr. O'Brien stated, in the national capital of Ottawa, which knows best in all circumstances. I agree with you that the culture in Windsor is different from the culture in Toronto is different from the culture in Sudbury. Optimally, we should go to all these places. But then you will tell us that the budget is going to be broken and we'll need twice as much money. So we have to be reasonable. The budget is already high enough, so we are going to try to see how we can accommodate those issues.
We have five different suggestions from the members plus the input today. In order that we don't prolong this debate forever, what I would like to suggest is that among the clerk and the research experts here, who have had a tremendous amount of experience in how much the travelling costs, we try to devise a schedule that will accommodate the people in the large cities. For obvious reasons we can't ignore Toronto or Montreal.
At the same time, they can see if we can add other locations as well within a budget that is going to be acceptable and that we can afford, because we'll have to make a budget presentation to the liaison committee soon.
This would be my suggestion. Then we'll come back to you as soon as possible with an outline. Maybe you could give me and the support staff, the clerk and the experts from research, some kind of a solution, unless you want to come back and discuss it again.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I don't want to prolong this, but I have a couple of other observations.
I appreciate the clarification on the Reform Party position, because I was a bit confused, having travelled with Reform members. I guess they'll make a decision on an ad hoc basis as to whether or not it's worth travelling. So if that's the case, fine.
We disagree, then. I certainly think you have to travel to begin to look at the question of a Canadian identity. Because it's a difficult question to look at, that's probably all the more reason to try to look at it and not to run away from it, in my humble submission.
There is another matter that didn't hit me until now, Mr. Chairman. I understand the budgetary problems, but I see the obvious region being missed here as the far north.
An observation from a lifetime Ontarian is that most people, I think, would feel that there's Toronto's culture and there's the rest of Ontario's culture. I think Mr. Abbott put his finger on that correctly, even as a westerner.
The Chairman: Point well taken.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: My last point is on supporting travelling outside the big centres. Several colleagues have mentioned it, such as Mr. Crête vis-à-vis Quebec, Mr. Arseneault and so on. I had the good fortune to visit Ireland, my ancestral place, for the first time last summer, and the people there said, Dublin's great but you'll not see the real Ireland until you get out of Dublin. I think that holds true for any country. So it would be a shame if we just went to the provincial capitals and didn't get to some of the smaller areas.
I'll be quiet now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault and then Ms Phinney.
.1140
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: Just a quick comment with regard to the west.
As Mr. Abbott is the only western member on the committee, without compromising his position, I was wondering whether he would maybe have a look at the western places. If he has a suggestion we could look at, maybe we'll entertain it.
That's without compromising yourself. You know the west, I'm sure, especially British Columbia. You may want to indicate somewhere other than Vancouver or Victoria that we might be able to get into.
Mr. Jim Abbott: As you say, without compromise, taking a look at British Columbia, you have two-thirds of its population living within a 100-mile radius of Vancouver. Possibly in the same way as Mr. O'Brien has said it, there's the Toronto culture and then there's the other.
When you get onto Vancouver Island, from Nanaimo north to Campbell River, probably the closest parallel to that, believe it or not, would be a two-hour plane ride up the coast to Prince Rupert. In other words, it's a coastal kind of a thing.
When you go over to Prince George and Fort St. John, although the centres are separated by a couple of hours of driving, there are some strong similarities there that would reflect the Cariboo.
When you get down to the Okanagan, you would be making a choice between Kamloops and Kelowna, for example. Although the people in that area would hate me saying this, nonetheless, there is a lot of distinctiveness and a lot of similarity there.
Coming into my area of the country, the Kootenays, the thing that's frustrating there is the difference between East Kootenay and West Kootenay. It's unfortunate that they both have the same last name. One should be called perhaps Columbia and the other Kootenay so you could see the distinction.
I understand why you asked the question. If I may, it basically underscores the point I was trying to make. If indeed, for the province of British Columbia, this was an effort to try to determine its culture, then I basically named - I didn't keep track - maybe five different centres where you would get distinct differences in the presentations. As I say, that's so even between East Kootenay and West Kootenay.
I say this in all kindness. I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just saying there are so many distinctions even within the province of British Columbia that coming to Vancouver is as good a place to come as any. If you went to Kelowna, you would not catch what is going on in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert, or the Kootenays.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: When making an inventory of all the cultures in Canada, we want to see how that inputs on Canadian culture and see some of the concerns they have.
The Chairman: I would really clarify this. The mandate is very clear. We're not trying to define the culture of Quebec or British Columbia or the differences from one town to another. This is what we are trying to define. There are lots of federal programs and legislation today in culture. There are all sorts of instruments and institutions. We want to see how they can adapt themselves to an emerging century. We want to get feedback from a cross-section of Canadians so we have an impact on the changes we need to federal culture.
Admittedly, the distinctions within provinces or regions of Canada are going to remain between town to town or region to region. That's obvious. So we're not going to change that or try to define that.
Ms Phinney.
Ms Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I think there has been enough discussion.
The Chairman: Yes, I think so too.
Ms Beth Phinney: Rather than everybody just making political speeches here and getting on the record as saying something, I would...
The only thing I'm going to say is that I like the idea of putting something like Banff and Calgary together, and Montreal and Trois-Rivières together, but I think we can leave it up to the researcher and the clerk to decide where we're going and make the most of the whole arrangement. Except I'd rather they didn't make deposits on hotel rooms until we're a little closer to the time.
The Chairman: Right. Could we agree that within the parameters of the budget that's been indicated, plus or minus 10% or something like this, we will let the clerk and the researcher define how we will work out something that would combine the big cities with a small centre, for instance Toronto and Niagara or something like this, and then advise you and come back to you?
If need be, if there's still a dichotomy among members, then we will have another meeting to decide. If not, we will get an assessment from members by phone, agree on a schedule and go on.
.1145
I take it that
[Translation]
all committee members are ready to join except for the members of the Reform Party. Mr. Crête, you are in favour of the idea of travelling. So there will be all the Liberal members and the...
[English]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: That doesn't preclude the Reform from joining us.
The Chairman: No. They could change their minds.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: That's just a position.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault: There are some areas there that I think the Reform Party would be very interested in.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Perhaps we could leave this item and just look quickly at what's ahead. You remember that when
[Translation]
the Auditor General came last week and unfortunately we had to interrupt our meeting because of a vote. The date now set for the Auditor General is March 20th.
[English]
So there will be a meeting to hear the Auditor General in regard to the parks on March 20, which is a Thursday. If you will recall, what we had said is
[Translation]
before the Easter recess.
[English]
we would try to get the researchers to give us an outline of the substance of our mandate so that during the holidays we can look at it and be prepared for the travel later on. The only day that leaves is Tuesday of the coming week, March 18. Unfortunately, the papers themselves won't be at your offices until Monday, March 17. I don't think they will be finished before Monday. So by Monday you will have the papers for the Tuesday meeting. We'll have a session on Tuesday to give you an outline so that you can take the text home to look at during the Easter break, including suggested witnesses for you to react to.
Ms Beth Phinney: Did you say there is a meeting on Tuesday, March 18?
The Chairman: Yes. We'll have a meeting on Tuesday, March 18, to hear the researchers on the outline they have prepared, which will be sent to you on the Monday.
Ms Beth Phinney: Do we know when?
The Chairman: It will be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Then we'll have a meeting on Thursday to hear the Auditor General before the Easter break. That will also be at 11 a.m.
Ms Beth Phinney: Do we have a meeting this Thursday?
The Chairman: No, we have one on the following Thursday. There's nothing this Thursday. Is that clear?
[Translation]
Are there any other matters you wish to raise?
[English]
I declare the meeting adjourned.