Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Anybody else? Mr. Pudlat is next on my list. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for pronouncing my name properly. I am in agreement with this bill but for some of my communities there is a concern. Maybe it was me who misunderstood but most of the people agree with this bill but they feel that their rights might be violated. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have justices of the peace in the communities; would they need written approval authorizing such searches and seizures of whatever they're looking for, if this act comes into place? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: that the rules that are applicable and the rights that are protected are under the Canadian Charter of Rights, these are applicable. They must be adhered to and they must be respected. However, even in the case of the RCMP, there are certain rules that they abide by and those same rules will be taught to the by-law officers. In fact, as part of their training, by-law officers should have already been taught that they don't have the right, without consideration for the rights of those individuals and vehicles that they are searching; that there is a consideration that must be given to the Charter protections that have already either been ruled or, for that matter, can be narrowly interpreted.

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Mr. Pudlat.

Mr. Nerysoo.

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the right to search and seize is based on the rights protected under the Charter and that has to be protected in all cases.

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Any other general comments? Does everybody agree, then, to go clause by clause?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause By Clause

Okay. Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, clause 1.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 2.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 3.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 4.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 5.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 6.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 7.

Agreed.

---Agreed