I know this is somewhat unusual; this is mostly used as procedure when we're not sitting. We haven't forgotten Mr. Comartin's bill, but in essence we're at the same position we were when we last met: we're still in discussions with the provinces. Until we've firmed up what they want to do, we can't tell which witnesses—if any—we'd have to call. Once we've ascertained that, it may be very quick, as Mr. Harris has suggested.
But for the time being, it's our suggestion—I'd make that motion—that we set it aside until such time as we studied the organized crime bill, which we've committed some amount of time to. Mr. Comartin was there, and I think he'd probably be in agreement with that.
As for setting it in March, why set it in March? It will probably be much quicker than that. Once we have the provinces' positions and we know where we stand with witnesses, as Mr. Harris has suggested, it shouldn't take that much time.
Sorry, it was the organized crime study, not the bill.