THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day with videoconference at 11:37 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against a person providing health services or a first responder).
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators.
[English]
My name is Brent Cotter, a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee. I’m going to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning.
Senator Audette: Kuei. Michèle Audette, from Nitassinan, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned land of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you and welcome, colleagues. A special welcome to Senator Manning who is joining us today.
We are meeting today to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders). There are a series of instructions reminding us to be cautious about the microphones, but I think we are well enough experienced that, with your agreement, I will forego those messages.
A reminder, though, that we are the master of our own business within the bounds of the Senate, and we have the opportunity to proceed to adopt this bill based on its present form with amendments that might be proposed and/or with observations. To date, the committee has not received any proposed amendments, and with your indulgence, I’ll proceed immediately to the decision to go to the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Hearing no objections, thank you.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We got through that one clause very quickly, thank you.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
I note there are two proposed observations, one from Senator Pate and one from Senator Simons. I’m going to invite Senator Pate, since she’s first on my list, to speak to her proposed observation.
Senator Pate: Thank you. The reasoning behind this is the fact an issue that has come up a number of times at this committee, the fact that we can’t often make laws that impact the areas that need to be impacted often because it’s provincial or other jurisdiction. So we often resort to the only part of the law we can, which is the criminal law, which tends to be the least effective way to deal with these issues. We heard from a number of witnesses that very message. I don’t know if you need me to go through that, but if people want more information, I can go through some of the witnesses as well as some of the questions that you asked, Mr. Chair, around deterrence.
I’m proposing this as an observation as well as the second paragraph is the reminder that the Criminal Code review that we keep reminding the government just to help put pressure on for that kind of review to happen. Does anybody need more information?
Senator Batters: First of all, I think that perhaps the full observation should be read out for all those listening. My couple of comments —
The Chair: Since you offered that very wise advice, I’ll invite Senator Pate to read it out.
Senator Batters: Sure, then I’ll make my comments.
The Chair: Then I’ll turn it to you. Thanks.
Senator Pate: Great. Thank you very much, Senator Batters. Of course, the people listening and the public don’t have a copy of it. The observation I propose is:
The committee observes that Bill C-321 takes steps to increase penalties without addressing the underlying systemic and societal issues that contribute to increases in these forms of assaults. Criminal law changes are not an alternative to fulsome supports and efforts towards addressing the systemic underlying causes of increased criminalization and the many social determinants of justice linked to safer communities, prevention of crime and better outcomes for all, particularly those overrepresented in the criminal legal system. Indeed, without such measures, criminal law changes risk resulting in further overrepresentation in the criminal legal system of those most marginalized. The government needs to invest in the reforms called for by the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action and the recommendations of Canada’s Black Justice Strategy.
The second paragraph is:
The committee has consistently observed that the Criminal Code has been amended in a piecemeal manner for many decades and has become cumbersome, sometimes repetitive or inconsistent, and is in need of comprehensive reform — see, for instance, the committee’s 2017 report Delaying Justice is Denying Justice at pages 41 to 43.
The committee repeats its past recommendation that an independent body should undertake a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. The revived Law Commission of Canada could undertake such a review, which should include a study of all provisions in the code that pertain to crimes against vulnerable persons.
Senator Batters: Okay. Thank you, Senator Pate. With respect to the first paragraph, I guess my major comment about that would be, of course — as everyone will be aware — private members’ bills can only do so much, so this particular bill being a private member’s bill from MP Todd Doherty, it’s not allowed to do certain things regarding financial implications, as everyone will be well aware. That would be my comment to put a lot of this on something he doesn’t have ability to deal with. I wouldn’t want it to diminish the consideration of this important bill.
The second point, a very small point on that observation, in the third line, I’m not a fan of using the word “fulsome.” I would suggest “full” there instead. My comment about the second paragraph, which, yes, we have put that observation on many bills in the last few years, but my comment at this point — we haven’t done it for a couple of months mainly because we’ve had government bills; I guess maybe we did it with Bill C-40. What I’m thinking is since the last time we put that on, our steering committee has sent a letter to the Law Reform Commission of Canada — by the way, the word “reform” is missing in that title in the third-last line.
The Chair: Call it the Law Commission rather than the Law Reform. They’re against reform, I believe.
Senator Batters: I didn’t realize that. Given that we’ve sent that letter asking them, “Hey, we’ve said this in many different bills as an observation, we would encourage you to do this.” We haven’t received a reply back yet on that. I thought that maybe we should leave it for a little bit to actually get a reply rather than continue to say it. Instead, maybe let’s try to get a reply from them. That would be my suggestion on that.
The Chair: Other comments?
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you.
I understand and appreciate my colleague Senator Batters’ comment. We can do both. It’s important to repeat things. Communication experts or people who work with communication experts say that you have to repeat a message for a minimum of 20 times for it to be received or understood on the other side. It doesn’t hurt to repeat. When we get answers, we can adjust.
For my part, I want to thank you for the work that has been done. It’s necessary, because we’re really moving forward one tiny step at a time, when what’s at stake is an epidemic. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Simons: As a grammatical pedant, I second Senator Batters’ revulsion with the word “fulsome,” which is actually an insult. I know people misuse it all the time, but “full” does the job.
I agree with Senator Audette. As I’ve said before, “Carthage must be destroyed,” and I think repetition is the point. The one thing I think is missing in this observation, I think what the witnesses told us is that many of these assaults are being carried out by people suffering from mental illness and addiction. We talk about Indigenous and Black defendants by implication here, but I don’t know if there’s a way to capture the sense of the extraordinary number of these assaults that are being carried out by people who are suffering from mental illness and addiction. Yes, we were told some of the assaults are carried out in a cold-blooded way by gangsters, but I think especially the assaults in hospital are mostly being carried out by people who are ill. I don’t know if there’s a way to —
Senator Pate: Should we add “recommendations by the Mental Health Commission of Canada”?
Senator Simons: Yes. That would mean more. The poor paramedics on the street, yes, they are occasionally being assaulted by bad people, but in many cases, they are on the front lines of dealing with an epidemic in mental illness and substance abuse disorder, and they are put in an impossible position.
The Chair: I’m not trying to move too fast on these observations, but a sentence perhaps in the one that you have proposed, Senator Simons, might be a better location for it. We can try to craft such a sentence. I was thinking of maybe just before your very last sentence, you might think about that. It’s a little hard to get that far ahead, as Senator Batters reminds me we haven’t read that one out. I’m inclined to think it’s a good point, and I see others nodding their heads that’s a message that should be conveyed.
Senator Pate: I don’t know if anyone else is before me. I’m also fine with adding in the Mental Health Commission to recommendations because they’ve made a number of recommendations about not criminalizing people with addiction and mental health issues. We could say “pertinent recommendations from the Mental Health Commission” as part of that list at the end of the first paragraph.
The Chair: That’s not unreasonable, although so much of that work is in provincial jurisdiction, and I’d just like that message to be conveyed broadly. In fact, a lot of that stuff beyond the boundaries of what the sponsor of Bill C-321 and the advocates have said about this as part of this larger system — the tail end of it — but most of it resides outside of our official authority. If we’re going to send a message, we should hang on to that observation about the mental health to be responded to by all orders of government. That’s my only intended contribution.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I had a lot of difficulty hearing what was just said.
We have to get back to the objective of Bill C-321. I don’t agree with labelling people who have a mental health problem. I didn’t get that from the witnesses. We mustn’t forget that we’re talking about the Criminal Code. If there’s a mental health problem, probably the Crown prosecutor or the people responsible... We’re not there. We’re talking about Bill C-321 and sentencing. When a person is convicted, a judge may say that the sentence will be harsher because the victim was a health services representative.
The first sentence of the comments isn’t quite right. This is not a measure to increase the sentence. It’s an additional discretion given to judges.
I don’t think there will be a person with mental health problems in front of the judge. From the outset, they won’t be there, because if the administration and the Crown do their job well, without mens rea, the Criminal Code will apply. The person won’t be there. If they’re suffering from mental health problems, they need to be treated elsewhere. It’s not before a judge that they should be charged.
The witnesses came to tell us that there were problems and that sometimes people acted out, because there was pressure on them, mental health problems, but they didn’t come to tell us.... They said quite the opposite, that these weren’t cases that were going all the way to court.
I just don’t want us to take this shortcut, to be careful in the way we phrase these sentences, because people who suffer from mental health problems are entitled to as much consideration and respect from us as any other person. I have difficulty with these statements.
Also, still on the first paragraph, the witnesses were unanimous that the bill was a supportive and encouraging measure. I was less in agreement with the nuances of the first paragraph, except at the end, where I fully agree that the government must invest in the reforms called for by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I agree with my colleague Senator Audette that the message needs to be repeated. In summary, I agree with the end of the first paragraph, but not with the beginning of the paragraph, for the reasons I have just expressed.
[English]
The Chair: We are at Senator Clement.
Senator Clement: I’m not sure if others want to respond to Senator Oudar.
The Chair: There might be two or three things you might want to respond to. I’m going to invite you to hold the collection of them in reserve, if that’s all right, Senator Pate.
Senator Clement: I am in agreement with this observation. I just wanted to highlight that there’s a reference to Canada’s Black Justice Strategy here, which I appreciate. There will be, as I’ve told my colleagues, more to come on that topic depending on the legislation that we’re going to be reviewing. I’m just raising that issue.
I also agree with the fact that we’ve added — changed “vulnerable persons.” We weren’t using that language prior, but the last time we did some wordsmithing, Senator Oudar added that word and I think it better captures those messages that we need to keep repeating.
I don’t think observations diminish the impact of legislation. This is a committee that is clearly supporting this legislation, and observations are a way to point to further work that needs to be done. Those are my comments.
Senator Batters: Thank you. The one comment I wanted to make just about observations in general — I’ve voiced this many times here — that I kind of, especially recently, really started to question whether the government is paying any attention to these at all. They haven’t really given any indication that they have for the last couple of years.
My general point on this is that I usually find that the better way to express these types of things may be through speeches made in the chamber on these bills to draw these points out and have that recorded in Hansard. Obviously, this is recorded, then, as part of the report, but I just think — and if someone doesn’t want to make an entire speech about a bill but they simply want to draw these points to the Senate’s and everyone else’s attention, I think that could also be done through a question and answer with the sponsor or critic of the bill to draw out those points. I just bring that to the committee’s attention that that could be perhaps a more effective way. I really feel like these are just being ignored routinely. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I like this idea. This way, we can do both: we can speak in the chamber and add a comment. That’s good.
Any bill like this only partially addresses a problem. What’s more, adding comments would allow us to collectively agree on our diversity, which is important. That’s a plus.
I’d like to come back to our colleague Senator Oudar’s comment. Let’s not forget Montreal’s homeless population. These people face different issues affecting one or more of our four dimensions: mental, spiritual, physical and emotional. Often, these issues can be intoxication or mental health disorders. Many had been ticketed by the police. There was a movement. This situation could have landed them in jail.
Unfortunately, some groups with mental health knowledge risk being misinterpreted when acting in a hospital. It may not be my place, but why am I uncomfortable? It’s because there have been effects or places where we’ve heard stories because they’ve had a reaction because of their mental health situation. Unfortunately, they were in front of judges who perhaps didn’t raise the issue that Senator Oudar raised: these people should be in a different place. That’s my concern.
Yesterday, I was listening, but I couldn’t speak. That’s the way life is. Arriving with weapons is an offence, and therefore a crime. Following the examples we were given yesterday when talking about weapons, I said to myself that it was already illegal to do that.
If we remove or add the mental health dimension, I’m going to support this initiative, because we’ve already seen people suffer, people who have been criminalized because of it. Now, we have to work to ensure that they are no longer criminalized because of this situation. That will be another fine debate.
[English]
Senator Pate: I would agree with what Senator Audette just said. I agree that what you raise, Senator Oudar, is what should be happening, but in most jurisdictions in this country, particularly when we look — I can think of a number of examples where people, even when they’ve been committed under mental health legislation, have also been — there hasn’t been a communication between the two systems, and then they’ve been criminalized. While the tests are slightly different, if someone is incapable of making decisions about their own treatment, there’s a fair chance they’d be found incapable of having mens rea, yet that happens routinely, particularly for racialized — in my experience, with Indigenous and Black accused and people who have the intersections of those issues.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I was extremely sensitive to everything I heard. We all agree on the bill. I understand that there are the clients. Clause 1 applies to clients, but the purpose of the bill was also to protect workers who, in more than 50% of cases, are women.
I agree that the underlying systemic causes should be addressed, not just increased criminalization. No one has been able to explain the causes, because it’s too deep. What is the root cause of the increasing violence against health care workers? I predict that the next debate will be about teachers, because we have the same figures and statistics.
If we’re talking about clients, I think we can’t talk about workers. We’ve heard a cry from the heart here, and we can’t be blind and deaf to what we’ve heard. No one has been able to explain the underlying systemic causes. It’s become too complex and multifactorial. If we have a message to send, we can’t do it just from this side.
It’s also for these reasons that I’m uncomfortable, because we’ve heard too many testimonials over the last few weeks, cries from the heart. I won’t go back over everything we’ve been told about the increase in suicide rates, for example. Honestly, I find it alarming and I continue to be alarmed by it. We can’t avoid talking about it, because that’s what justifies the bill. If we submit comments, they have to be complete, otherwise we have to stick to the bill. It’s not that I don’t agree with everything that’s been said, I agree, but perhaps we’re not in the right forum. Perhaps it’s the speeches that we need to deal with. As we said earlier, I think we need to accentuate everything we’ve heard and perhaps look for underlying causes. That was my point.
[English]
The Chair: Could I suggest a way forward of potentially knitting these observations together and a decision process for the various parts of them? We haven’t read it into the record, but Senator Simons’ proposed observation is a bit closer to the response that Senator Oudar made. I’m wondering if we put it into the mix for discussion, we may then think we have touched a sufficient number of bases here with one kind of conditional sentence that I thought may be helpful on the issue of action to prevent these, and if I can describe it maybe somewhat diplomatically, bridge the question between intentional and unintentional harm that gets visited upon front-line workers.
If you are comfortable with that, we will continue the discussion, but I might then invite us to put into the mix Senator Simons’ observation, and we can determine whether it covers the territory that Senator Oudar and others have mentioned. Would you be comfortable with that?
Senator Simons: I think my observation comes closer to what you were talking about.
The Chair: Senator Simons, why don’t you read it into the record, and we will consider it as a consolidated conversation among these three paragraphs and then move to make some decisions. Do you have a hard copy of it?
Senator Simons: I don’t, but I can read it off my phone because I have really good glasses.
Your committee observes that there is a serious and growing increase in acts of violence against health care workers and first responders acting in the performance of their duties. Compounding this concern is the consistent observation from witnesses that it is remarkably difficult for persons providing professional care to report on these incidents of violence, to have them meaningfully addressed and to feel meaningfully supported. There is an urgent need for cultural and professional change to address this problem from employers, regulators, the criminal justice system and all levels of government. Professional care providers are in need not only of increased legal support but also emotional and social acknowledgement in their workplaces for the difficulties they face from violence and the threat of violence.
The Chair: I will invite Senator Oudar to reflect on how that is for her.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: It’s a question of vocabulary that’s important: health care professionals, that’s too restrictive. The law doesn’t talk about that. It talks about people who provide health care services. I just want to tell you that there are also technicians, there are other people who are not always professionals and who also suffer these assaults. Some of them have come to testify. I would suggest that we use the same vocabulary as the law, and disregard the notion of “professionals”. There are people who are going to feel excluded in the observations. They’ve come to tell us so. Thank you, Senator Simons; I agree with the comment.
[English]
Senator Simons: In English, “care” expresses more than “health.” In the French translation, it says “health professionals.” In English, it says “care providers,” and I don’t know if there is a way to get a French translation that is more congruent.
The Chair: Where are you referring to in the bill, Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Not in the bill, in the observation.
The Chair: I think Senator Oudar was suggesting that we use language as close as possible to the language in the bill. As I read the bill, the language is “. . . a person who provides health services, including personal care services, or a first responder . . . .” So if we could adapt it to the —
Senator Simons: If we say, “persons who provide health services or who are first responders” — yes.
The Chair: I think that’s well aligned. If people would like more, they should ask the drafter of the bill to have written it differently, but this just aligns the observation with the language in the bill itself.
Senator Simons: I wanted the focus of this to be less on the perpetrators and more on the victims because the thing I found the most disturbing — I mean, the descriptions of the violence were disturbing. The second most disturbing was to hear again and again from witnesses — and not just the ones we had yesterday — that when they have tried to complain, they have been told, “Don’t make a fuss, it is not worth the effort, it’ll look bad for us.” That speaks to a deep cultural malaise that this bill cannot address.
Senator Clement: I just have to ask the drafter of the observation if she would consider changing the term “levels of government.”
Senator Simons: It should be “orders.” Sorry.
Senator Clement: I like your emphasis on employers because we heard a lot about how employers are not responding in the way that they should. Municipal governments are very much involved in providing paramedic services, and we are very sensitive to “levels.”
Senator Simons: Of course, I mean “orders of government.” It does say that in French.
Senator Clement: Yes.
Senator Batters: Senator Simons, I was wondering, when you speak of “increased legal support,” do you mean what this bill does to assist them in receiving this legislative response? Or are you meaning some sort of legal support like to sue these people or something like that?
Senator Simons: Either way, you are right, it’s perhaps a bit ambiguous. Do you have a suggestion?
Senator Batters: I’m not sure, but if it is the latter that you meant, I don’t think we heard anything about that and —
Senator Simons: No.
Senator Batters: — what would be required, so I don’t think it would necessarily be appropriate.
Senator Simons: I meant this bill in sentencing support or criminal —
Senator Batters: Well, how about, “not only of the legislative framework of this bill,” instead of saying —
Senator Simons: “Increased legislative support”? Would that work?
Senator Batters: Well, being that this is an observation on this bill that we are talking about, I would just suggest that we cross out “increased legal support” and say “not only of the legislative response of this bill.”
Senator Simons: Yes, that’s good. That’s fair. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
The Chair: Other comments? Okay.
Working backwards, if we are comfortable with the paragraph proposed by Senator Simons, I might invite adoption of it. Does the committee agree to adopt that paragraph? Agreed. Now let’s look at the two paragraphs of Senator Pate’s.
Senator Simons: With the modifications as discussed, yes.
The Chair: Yes, you put those modifications and I will throw away my sentence that I no longer think is needed.
Turning now to the first paragraph, are there further comments on the first paragraph of Senator Pate’s observation? Can I invite Senator Pate to — let’s divide them in two, if I might, and invite you to propose a motion to adopt that paragraph?
Senator Pate: So proposed.
The Chair: Are we all in favour of adopting that paragraph?
Senator Simons: With the —
The Chair: With the adjustments that we made in the conversation. Okay. Agreed.
Now, in the second paragraph, Senator Pate is moving that we adopt that paragraph as well. Are we in favour of adopting that paragraph, all in favour? Carried.
Let me just say not so much in relation to the observation, but just as a piece of information that the letter prepared by the steering committee to the President of the Law Commission of Canada was delivered to her. I had a private meeting more in my capacity as a senator than in my capacity as the member of the committee, but what I had done, for your information, through the good offices of my staff, I pulled together the many recommendations that had been made over the years by this committee and a few others regarding work that a law commission can do and shared them as a package as ideas for the commission to work on going forward. The president was appreciative of receiving the package of material, but did not provide a specific commitment that she would suddenly down tools and get to work on our directives. I think we are not the only people who are making suggestions about what the law commission can do. But I wanted to inform you that this message, in its repeated circumstances — and a few others that have come occasionally from other committees for such work — were shared with her as a kind of information package.
This brings us to the next point. I think members are in agreement with the observations that we undertook with those slight adjustments and changes, so I will now move to this: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
I think that largely concludes our business today. I want to thank you for your engagement on both the bill and the observations. I know that people who are watching us — not always a large audience, but certainly people who have a significant degree of interest about this bill and, obviously, as we heard in testimony, have support for it. I want to thank them both for looking in today and for the support that they as citizens have provided to our work on this bill.
I want to thank you, colleagues, for having been so diligent in the handling of it and expeditious in bringing it to closure.
Senator Simons: Just before the adjournment, can we have a second to discuss what we will or won’t be doing next week?
The Chair: Of course. We do have some answers there. The bill is Bill C-320. We have it in mind to hear from the sponsor next Wednesday, Colin Carrie, a member of Parliament, and a panel there with one other witness, a victims’ rights activist, Lisa Freeman. We have a second panel of government officials, who have indicated that they are willing to come, not to do an initial presentation but to field questions. I think that is encouraging.
We have contemplated, subject to a proposal from Senator Pate, a few more witnesses. We had planned on Thursday, December 12 a panel on what I would call the victims of crime perspective including, as an alternative, at least, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.
We had informally discussed the idea to moving to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the second hour next Thursday. I would like us to move quickly if we can, being respectful of those who are championing the bill and any who have concerns, so we can move to other bills in the hopper, but I know that Senator Pate has reflected on the possibility of some additional witnesses. I observe that we will lose a bit of ground if we go down that road, and I will invite Senator Pate to observe on this equation if she would.
Senator Pate: Because this is an issue that has come up in the past as well, I had suggested some of the folks who generally look at things like civil liberties and that sort of thing as potential witnesses.
The Chair: I think you have shared those and probably it is for steering to make its recommendation —
Senator Pate: Yes.
The Chair: — whether we should add more witnesses or try to move a bit more expeditiously if you are comfortable with that and us reporting back.
Senator Pate: We provided — I say “we” as the “royal we” because Senator Cardozo provided them — a number with the recognition. At this time of year, it may be hard to get a bunch of folks. The list should not be emblematic of us wanting — I forget how many — seven or eight. It was more if this person can’t come, then this person.
The Chair: Without knowing for sure — because we never seem to know for sure, and we certainly don’t seem to know in this environment — there is a very good chance that Thursday will be the last meeting of the committee before the beginning of February which would mean that, however far we get is as far as we are likely to get before February. We might reflect a little bit on how we could try to achieve closure by next Thursday, if you are comfortable with that. It would be nice to wrap up this bill and have — I don’t want to call it a clean slate, but be able to move to a list of other bills that are pending. Right now, we have no anticipation of getting any government bills between now and next week, and even if we did get them, they start in the Senate, which is the right place to start. This will be the story of the balance of what we are able to achieve before we break for Christmas. We will see where we get with respect to the suggestions, Senator Pate, that you have made and have something to articulate no later than at the beginning of the Wednesday meeting of next week.
Are there any other questions or observations?
Once again, thanks to the people who have worked with this bill, and I want to thank you for your work on it as well, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)