[Translation]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, February 3, 1999
• 1541
[Translation]
The Chairman (Hon. Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to draw your attention to two documents prepared by the Library of Parliament. Mr. Forge has compiled some briefing notes in a document entitled: "Some Background Material on Biotechnology", and there is a document drafted by Ms. Labelle that is entitled: "Endocrine Disrupters in the Environment: The Scientific Perspective."
[English]
They have already been distributed. What has not been distributed is a letter that arrived yesterday from the International Joint Commission. I had made an enquiry there in early January. The letter makes a reference to an issue of chlorinated organic chemicals. It also makes a brief reference to endocrine disrupters.
I will ask the clerk to distribute this so that you have an idea. The letter is signed by the chairman of the Canadian section, Mr. Legault. I thought you might be interested in seeing it.
We agreed yesterday to start today with the government amendments that were prepared and delivered yesterday morning. We have had time to go over them, so we are ready to proceed with that. This is a package that the officials or the parliamentary secretary will introduce very soon.
I made reference to Mr. Forge's study. We also have an amendment, prepared by Mr. Moffet for the consideration of the committee, on whistle-blowers. Then we will continue our voyage into the routine of the amendments in the large book.
I invite you to take a look at the first amendment. I believe it's also in the large book, page 217. It was stood yesterday by the parliamentary secretary. I would enquire as to whether we are ready to deal with that amendment or whether it should be stood further.
• 1545
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to leave at 4.45 p.m., unfortunately, and I wonder whether it's at all possible, with your indulgence, sir, and that of the committee, for any NDP amendment after 4.45 p.m. to be put on hold until a further date—that is, if we're not up to them by that time.
The Chairman: We will try.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you for notifying us.
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment): For everyone's reference, we're on amendment G-10.5 on page 217. It affects clause 95.
Following your intervention and a discussion about both clause 92.1 and paragraph 97(b), we've actually prepared two additional amendments that delete the section you didn't think was necessary, which, on reflection, we agreed with. I have that before me now, in English and French.
The Chairman: Are these simple amendments or complicated amendments?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: They're very simple amendments. Their effect is to delete, on page 68 of the bill, in paragraph 97(b) on line 32, all the words after “release”, down to the semicolon.
The Chairman: What would be the net effect of this amendment? Would you please inform the committee?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The officials can give you further clarification on that, but the idea is that it's something that's carried over from the old bill, and it's deemed to be not necessary at this point.
Mr. Lerer would like to elaborate further.
Mr. Harvey Lerer (Director General, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, at yesterday's meeting there was a question raised with respect to clause 95 and the reference to clause 97, which implied that under paragraph 97(b) there was an exemption of the ability to exempt the requirement for notification and reporting.
You, Mr. Chair, asked that we go back and research this exemption, and we discovered the following things.
First, it is wording that is a rollover from the old CEPA. Second, it has never been used to exempt from reporting. The clause as written is not ever intended to be used as broadly as it was written. Therefore, if it is the committee's will to close that inadvertently broad wording, we've prepared an amendment, presented through the parliamentary secretary.
That wording would change paragraph 97(b) to read:
The rest of that paragraph would be struck to make sure the exemption was not there.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lerer.
Yesterday, this committee adopted clause 97, I believe, so I will have to ask the committee for its agreement to reopen it. Is there consensus to do that? I assume there is.
The parliamentary secretary has moved an amendment. Mr. Lerer has explained its significance—namely, that every word after the word “release”, on line 32, be struck in paragraph (b).
Are there any questions or comments?
If not, are you ready for the question? Those in favour, please so indicate.
Yes, Ms. Torsney.
• 1550
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Is the question on the additional amendment on the table or on G-10.5?
The Chairman: It is on the motion that has just been put.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: The new one.
The Chairman: It's the one that deletes the words after the word “release”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay.
The Chairman: In fact, the parliamentary secretary is right; we should first deal with G-10.5, which amends clause 95, and then with this amendment. Sorry about that.
The Chairman: Can you please move, then, the amendment on page 217? I had understood you to move the second item.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Oh, sorry; I thought I had moved 10.5. I don't know the new number of this one.
It's my pleasure to move government amendment 10.5.
The Chairman: All right.
Before the committee, then, is the motion described on page 217. Are there any questions or comments?
The Chairman: Before we go to the amendment that Mr. Lerer explained to us, which is on clause 97, could I ask you to deal with and have a look at an amendment to clause 96, made by Mr. Moffet? Mr. Moffet would like to inform the committee about a development in the Senate.
Mr. Moffet's amendment is on page 23.a of the small collection.
Mr. John Moffet (Consultant, Environmental Law and Policy, Resource Futures International): Through conversation with Mr. Cameron I was informed that the Competition Act amendment on which this amendment is based may have been sent back to the House from the Senate for further review.
I apologize to the committee. I didn't know about this, and I would like to investigate it. I would therefore request your indulgence to further stand this provision and not consider these amendments at this time.
The Chairman: Fine. We will not proceed at this stage with that amendment and will await further clarification.
The Chairman: This allows us to move on to clause 97 and to deal with the amendment by the parliamentary secretary, as explained by Mr. Lerer a moment ago. We had unanimous consent to reopen clause 97.
Are there any questions or comments on the explanation by Mr. Lerer? If not, are you ready for the question?
• 1555
The Chairman: Clauses 98 and 99 have already been carried. We will move briskly to clause 100, at breathtaking speed.
The Chairman: Who would like to move this government amendment, and who would like to explain it—the parliamentary secretary?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.
I'd like to move amendment G-10.7. It's in the small package that was delivered today,
The Chairman: It's page 24 in the small package.
Please go ahead.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It would replace G-11, which won't be moved.
Having moved this, let me also say that perhaps, in getting the officials to further clarify the need for this amendment, they will address the issues of clauses 100 through 103. It all relates to the Prior Informed Consent Convention, which was signed in the fall but in fact was not signed when this bill was being written. So the provisions were in here, but this certainly clarifies the obligations and the opportunities under the convention.
Now, with the chair's permission, over to Mr. Cameron.
The Chairman: Can we have an explanation?
Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment): Certainly.
The existing clauses in the bill, 100 to 103, provide the authority for Canada to ratify the Prior Informed Consent Convention that was signed by Canada last fall. Because the language in Bill C-32 was drafted before the language in the convention was finalized, there are a couple of places where there are inconsistencies between the enabling authority in the bill and what is required under the convention.
What we have tried to do in the new amendments is to address those inconsistencies and in so doing draft the enabling language in such a way that it streamlines and simplifies the way in which we've set out the order of things in the bill.
For example, what we have is essentially a rewrite of clauses 100, 101, 102 and 103. The new clause 100 will simply create the authority for the minister to add substances to the export control list, which is schedule 3 to CEPA.
The export control list is divided into three parts. Part 1 sets out those substances that are prohibited in Canada. Part 2 sets out substances that have been agreed to by the international community as requiring international approval before they may be exported from one party to another. Part 3 of the export control list sets out those substances that are restricted in Canada.
What you have to understand in order to appreciate the significance of these lists is that the Prior Informed Consent Convention list, or PIC list, sets out two notification regimes, depending on whether a substance is restricted or prohibited, and a separate notification regime for those substances on the PIC list.
For those substances that are in parts 1 and 3 of schedule 3—in other words, those substances that are both prohibited and restricted in Canada—parties to the PIC convention are required to provide notification of export to another party, the country of import, for the first movement of that substance, and must also provide notification to that importing country for the first movement in each calendar year thereafter. That's a requirement of the PIC Convention. That applies to parts 1 and 3 of the schedule.
For those substances listed in part 2 of schedule 3—the PIC list, as I've referred to it—parties to the convention are required to inform the PIC secretariat as to whether they are willing to accept imports of those substances.
• 1600
Furthermore, parties to the convention
may only export to other
parties if they have indicated their willingness to
accept imports of substances on the PIC list.
So there are two parallel notification regimes.
Because of the complexity of this, what we've simply tried to do is streamline the legislative language to enable us to meet these obligations. In clause 100, we've simply created the authority to create these lists, part 1 being prohibitive substances, part 2 being the PIC list, and part 3 being restricted substances.
In the next section—
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, you may want to give the committee the substance of what is being proposed here, apart from the complexity of the procedure. What this committee would like to understand is whether, as a result of this amendment of clause 100, Canada would export to, say, an African country a substance that Canada has decided not to use within its boundaries for health reasons.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: If the substance is prohibited in Canada, the only circumstances in which Canada could export it to another country would be if it was for purposes of destroying that substance.
The Chairman: Where is that indicated?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: That is indicated in new clause 101, in our amendment G-10.8.
The Chairman: So adding prohibited or restricted substances would only be a function of their destruction. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: I'm saying that this is the case for prohibited substances, for those substances in part 1 of schedule 3. Restricted substances may be exported for other purposes, but only in compliance with the regulations.
The Chairman: What does it mean, that you would add to part 3 substances that are restricted in Canada for health or other reasons—
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes.
The Chairman: —but for use in other jurisdictions?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: What you have to understand is that the PIC Convention doesn't create prohibitions on movement; it simply creates a notification system. So when countries move or ship chemicals from one country to another, there's a requirement that the receiving country must give its prior informed consent.
The Chairman: The PIC Convention is fine, but the central issue before us is whether Canada, as a result of this amendment, becomes engaged in the export of substances that will not be used in Canada for health reasons and for use elsewhere.
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, perhaps I could direct all committee members to look at page 221 of the bill, which has the schedule and all the substances. It might help us to focus more clearly on what these clauses do and what substances we're talking about.
So page 221 of your bill sets out schedule 3. As well, there's going to be a new schedule.
The Chairman: Where is part 3?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry, but now that I've said that to you, Mr. Chair, in the package that was handed out to you today, on the very last few pages, G-31.1—that's pages 55, 56, and 57, and in French pages 58, 59, and 60—gives a clarification in terms of the list. Three sections are involved.
The Chairman: It's very good of you to guide us through the lists. The policy that we need to understand here is whether we become participants in a process of exporting substances, for the purpose of their destruction or for the purpose of their use abroad, that would not be allowed in Canada because we consider them dangerous.
• 1605
If I understand correctly, Mr. Cameron, in the
case of part 1, they would be exported for their
destruction. Correct?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Correct.
The Chairman: In the case of part 3, they would be exported for...?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: They could be exported as a matter of international trade. The requirements of the PIC Convention are simply that before they are exported, there must be prior informed consent by the receiving country.
The Chairman: Right. But why would we want to export substances that are restricted in Canada? What would be the rationale for that? Evidently we have reasons to restrict them.
Mr. Duncan Campbell: I can only speculate, but one speculation might be that if the receiving country has in place the same control measures we have, they may wish to use it under the same controlled circumstances we do.
But I'm not familiar with these chemicals. Perhaps some of the Environment officials could speak to it.
The Chairman: Mr. Moffet, do you have any comments?
Mr. John Moffet: No, I can't comment on the rationale for trade. I think it's important to clarify that the amendment's new subclause 101(3) would restrict exports of substances listed in parts 2 or 3 unless the export is done in accordance with any regulations.
What this does is provide the government with authority to regulate the nature of those exports, but it doesn't stipulate that those regulations have to be developed or the nature of the restrictions that will be imposed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the parliamentary secretary, this current list that we have here is just the list as of today. It doesn't say anything about the new chemicals and so forth coming down the road.
As an example, I would take the MMT decision, which we lost, and the bovine growth hormone and anything else that comes down.
My fear would be that if the United States says this particular product is safe, under our international trade agreements we could be subject to being forced into a situation of accepting a dangerous chemical that would be bad for Canada, and having our international agreements override our CEPA bill because of this current list that's here now.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Two issues. First, the sections we're dealing with deal with exports, so it's things that have been manufactured in Canada or that exist in Canada and are being exported.
Second, one of the reasons, as Mr. Moffet has identified—well, he didn't identify the reason; he identified that its regulations will be also important as companion pieces to this bill in this area—is that as things are added to lists of restricted use or banned use in Canada, you can amend it through regulation rather than having to amend an entire piece of legislation, such as a CEPA.
So it can be done in regulations. Some people would think that this would give us some flexibility.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.
The Chairman: But we wouldn't know what the regulations would say, you see? The regulations could be permissive—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was talking about adding substances, though.
The Chairman: Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a question, but I think Mr. Stoffer is not quite through yet.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, I'll come back to it later. You go ahead.
Mr. John Herron: I would want to be the last one to maybe put words into the chair's mouth, but I think his concern was that as a nation, we may be manufacturing a restricted substance in this country for potential commercial use in another country that perhaps may not have the same kind of environmental guidelines that we might have, because it may be an emerging nation of some form. They may not have the same types of regulations that we, as a more progressive society environmentally, might have.
I think that might be the concern of the chair. I don't know that these are quite connected, but wouldn't that contravene to some degree even the Basel Convention, for instance? No? But you said there would be a chance we'd be, in the first section, exporting for that purpose.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Let me just address the first issue. I think Canada continues to work with other nations to encourage other nations to adopt some of these standards and to come up to the highest denominator. So there are other mechanisms as well for doing some of the work you're trying to talk about.
• 1610
This convention helps to address some of those
issues, and new substances will be added to that list.
Countries will have to follow certain guidelines based
on that convention.
We have signed this convention and we are interested in ratifying it because it is important for a lot of the reasons you're trying to address. We're trying to have it come into force, which would encourage the restriction of things that we don't want circulating in our country, or any country. So it is important to have the convention ratified in Canada and to make it come into effect for the whole world.
Mr. John Herron: So what you're saying, then, is that we would be shipping for commercial purposes without any restriction, but under the agreement you're talking about, we would be able to have at least some restrictions.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.
Mr. John Herron: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Again for the parliamentary secretary, she had mentioned quite proudly about Canada and its standards, and promoting other countries to maintain or exceed our standards. But some European Community countries think Canada is actually failing in its standards.
I would take toxic toys as an example. When they put in laws to ban those toys with regard to the vinyl concern—I forget the technical name of it now—Canada actually held off for awhile.
So I think just for clarification, on the record, Canada's standards have actually dropped in the last few years. That's not necessarily my opinion but others' opinions as well.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I take it from the comments, Mr. Chair—I gather it's my turn—that the member opposite will be interested in encouraging Canada to be part of the first group of people to ratify this new convention and ensure that it comes into force.
As you know from your work on land mines, with international conventions you need a certain group of countries to have ratified it for it to come into force. I take it you're supportive.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Would it also be possible to get a copy of the PIC Convention that you're talking about?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Certainly.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thanks.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I understand why it would be nice to bring the bill in line with this convention, but obviously the original bill was CEPA 1988, and it's now 1999. Eleven years have passed. I would assume the Government of Canada has signed one or two other conventions in the past 11 years. It seems to me that the Government of Canada will probably sign one or two more conventions after CEPA 1999 comes into force.
I'm just wondering why we would have to go into such detailed description in this bill to bring the bill in line with this particular convention. Certainly if Canada ratifies the convention there are ways of dealing with these issues through regulatory-making powers or whatever. I'm wondering why we need such detailed instructions in the bill. Maybe there are other ways of handling it that don't constrain us in the future, because I'm also concerned about how substances get on the list. If you're talking about three different kinds of lists, who is making those decisions as to whether they should be sent to other countries for destruction or for use? It concerns me that this may be written up in CEPA so explicitly.
The Chairman: Mr. Mongrain.
Mr. Steve Mongrain (Representative, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, the language Bill C-32 proposed had a fair bit of detail in these sections. This is a realignment of those sections to enable us to meet some of the requirements of the PIC Convention, but it doesn't specifically mention the PIC Convention. It's written to try to foresee new conventions.
It also provides the minister with authority, under subclause 101(4), to put in place the total prohibition on export. So it's not intended to get us into the business of exporting substances that are prohibited or controlled in some fashion. Far from it. It's to meet our international obligations so that there's informed consent when this trade does take place.
• 1615
The Chairman: That's the key point—when the trade takes place. The question is, when does the trade take place? The records show fairly frequent exports to African countries, for instance, of substances that we in Canada would not dare to use. That has been reported in the newspaper.
This question is raised when you read, in a subsequent amendment, new subclause 101(4):
As well, you read, in new subclause 102(2), that it is the Governor in Council who makes regulations, not the minister. That means if there is a strong commercial interest, that decision will be driven by the Minister of Industry, let's say, but not by the Minister of the Environment.
If subclause 102(2) were written in a manner whereby the minister or the ministers—namely, health and environment—were making the regulations, then you would give a much greater assurance as to what goes on the list and what doesn't. Once you go the Governor in Council route, then you know who the big players are. The commercial interests, at the end of the day, would prevail, and then we are in the soup again.
That's why Mr. Herron was trying to interpret earlier what was going through my mind, for which I'm very grateful.
Perhaps you can remove these fears I've just explained to you. All I'm saying is that new subclause 102(2), if read in conjunction with 100 and 101, leads to that conclusion. However, if, instead of “Governor in Council”, 102(2) would read “the Ministers”, then you would know that this decision was made by the minister sponsoring this bill, who would not be overridden by other ministers, whoever they may be.
That is the problem, at least for me. But you may want to remove this preoccupation. I would be glad to hear from you.
Are there any further questions on the amendment to clause 100? Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to move government amendment 10.8. As has been identified, it relates to pages 71 and 72 of the bill, clause 101.
Let me say that enabling Canada to set up this regime and to be part of the PIC Convention, to ensure that the PIC Convention comes into force, ensures that countries that also have signed it, whether that be in Africa or any other part of the world, can use the PIC Convention to force Canada to control the substance. As well, without it, Canadian companies could technically export to those countries without anybody intervening.
So I think it's an important convention and it's an important opportunity to make sure it comes into force.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Any comments or questions? Mr. Herron, go ahead.
Mr. John Herron: I just wanted to know why, even though it's the same section—and it may just be a typographical error—they would put restrictions on exports twice. That's above new subclause 101(2).
Ms. Paddy Torsney: One relates to part 1 substances and one relates to parts 2 and 3 substances of the schedule.
• 1620
So in the second line of 101(2), it says part 1,
and in the second line of 101(3), it relates to parts
2 and 3. Do you see that? It's harder to read with the
underlines, but it's clear.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Here again we are on a slippery slope. I draw the attention of the committee members to new subclause 101(3), the third line, where the word “unless” is followed by “the export of the substance is done in accordance with any regulations made under subsection 102(1)”. If you turn to 102(1), again you see that it's the Governor on Council who is in charge, on the recommendation of the ministers.
Mr. Moffet.
Mr. John Moffet: Mr. Chair, from my understanding, your concern, and the concern that some other members have raised, is with regard to the potential situation that Canada, under these provisions, could export a substance that is restricted in Canada to a country that does not have similar restrictions, and thus we would be saying we care enough about our residents to restrict the use of the substance but we will ship it to another country that perhaps doesn't have the infrastructure or the wherewithal to put in place the appropriate restrictions to look after their citizens and ecosystem.
These amendments address that concern, as I understand them, by providing authority to the Governor in Council to promulgate regulations. The regulations could address your concern but they might not. There's nothing in the legislation that requires that those regulations would address your concern.
I am wondering if a way to address your concern would be to amend the provision to stipulate two conditions on the export of a substance. The first provision would be that the importing country has in place restrictions on the use of a substance that are equivalent to those in place in Canada, and we would put that in law, that we won't export a substance that is restricted in Canada to any country that hasn't similarly restricted its use.
The second restriction would be to also provide for additional regulations made under 102(1). Those presumably could be tailored to the substance and the country in question.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.
Are there any comments? Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Moffet, just for clarification, is that only for countries that are signatories?
Mr. John Moffet: No. The gist of what I'm suggesting is that it would be a restriction on Canada's ability to export. The provision would say, “no person shall export a substance specified in part 2 or 3 of the Export Control List” unless, (a) the importing country—any importing country—has in place restrictions on the use of the substance equivalent to Canada, and (b) the export of the substance is done “in accordance with any regulations made under subsection 102(1)”.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just out of curiosity, how many countries are under PIC right now, or that you know of?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: They need 50 to ratify it. When 50 ratify it, it will come into force, but we don't know how many have signed.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do you know how many have signed now?
Mr. John Moffet: No.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's a good point. Basically, you're saying that we could be agreeing to something that isn't ratified yet. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. John Moffet: No, no, what I'm suggesting is that we would say that we won't export a substance to a country unless we know that country has in place domestic laws or regulations that restrict the use of the substance in the same way that we restrict the use of the substance. It has nothing to do with PIC.
• 1625
We're going to look at their laws and regulations and
ask whether they are equivalent to ours. Are they
providing
human health and environmental protection equivalent
to
what we provide with respect to the use of that
substance?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: So you're correlating that with substances we import as well, for example, correct?
Mr. John Moffet: No.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: No? Because you just said the way we would restrict.
Mr. John Moffet: No, this provision relates to substances that have been placed on parts 2 or 3 of the export control list. If you flip back to the previous page, it says that part 2 contains substances that are subject to an international agreement that requires notification, and part 3 contains substances whose use is restricted in Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Herron, followed by the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. John Herron: I'd like to speak in favour of Mr. Moffet's amendment, if it is an amendment, if we are going to go down that route. I voted for the last amendment from the standpoint that the parliamentary secretary was able to convince me that this was a step in the right direction for us to encourage countries to have better environmental standards, or at least environmental standards somewhat congruent to ours.
What Mr. Moffet's recommendation actually does is define that more distinctly and address the concern I had, and that I think the chair had as well. So I think that would be a very proper way to go.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could get some specific language to look at, and some time to think about it, because clearly we don't have that before us at this point.
The Chairman: That's exactly what we should do. Mr. Moffet will prepare something in due course so that we can perhaps apply the very helpful suggestion you made earlier—another Moffet amendment.
Mr. John Moffet: I will prepare wording and distribute it, and presumably, if this is to go forward, a member will move it, not “Mr. M.”
Just to be fair on this issue, I would urge you, in considering the gist of this amendment, to consider this issue—that is, that there are some countries, some so-called developing countries, that would perceive this amendment to be paternalistic. It's for you to decide whether or not that's something you are concerned about. This is an issue that has arisen in the international environmental debate around issues like this.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): With the Americans?
Mr. John Moffet: No, some developing countries have put on record their concern about paternalistic approaches such as this. I just want to be open about that issue.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If I'm not mistaken, we could deal with this issue Tuesday. Perhaps we could also arrange for tomorrow's meeting to have for members some information on the PIC Convention so they would have greater clarification of what's currently involved in the convention.
Third, in line with Mr. Moffet's comments on the paternalistic nature of this, or telling other jurisdictions what to do and working with other jurisdictions on legislation, it just struck me as odd that, of course, at various times the committee has questioned whether the provinces have the ability to deal with things in the way we like. They're within our own barriers, and here we are talking about other countries.
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Are we not standing down that clause?
The Chairman: If an amendment is coming forward, we can always—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Do it after? Do you want to pass this one and maybe amend?
The Chairman: All right. Let's leave it in abeyance until we see the amendment, when we can make a decision. Is that the wish of the committee?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.
The Chairman: All right. We will move to page 28.
The parliamentary secretary.
• 1630
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Lord, I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe we should stand clauses 102 and 103 and just deal with them all as a bundle when we get back with the PIC Convention and with Mr. Moffet's suggestions on the other one.
The Chairman: All right.
The Chairman: We will move on to page 13, and clause 103. Are you suggesting that we leave it?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Not moved.
The Chairman: The clerk informs me that we have carried clauses 104 and 105. We stood 106 because of the biotechnology. Clauses 107, 108, and 109 have been carried.
The Chairman: There is another government amendment. Would you like to propose it?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would propose government amendment 12.1 on page 32 of the small package.
The effect of this amendment, were it to pass, would be to add a timeframe of within 90 days. It's on page 80 in the bill.
Basically, this is to allow the government the opportunity to do the paperwork. I think Ms. Lloyd would be able to elaborate further on just what paperwork is involved, if you're interested.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments? If not, are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: Clauses 111, 112, and 113 have been carried.
The Chairman: Please turn to page 34.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Lincoln had some amendments having to do with clause 106. Are we dealing with those today or not?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: We stood it down the other day.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Fine. I wasn't sure if we were returning to it today, because he thought we might be.
• 1635
The Chairman: All right, back to clause 114. It has been established that there is only this amendment on page 34 and one on page 35. We can proceed with the one on page 34.
Will the parliamentary secretary introduce it, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I am happy to move government amendment 12.2. The effect of it is to change the current wording from “defining” to “respecting”.
The Chairman: Any explanation with regard to the amendment?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: This goes back to some of those debates we had earlier with regard to the bill, sometime before Christmas, about defining and respecting. I think it reflects the committee's wishes.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just for clarification, I was wondering if you could go over the difference between “defining” and “respecting”, and whether there are any legal connotations to that change.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Over to Mr. Cameron.
They tied him up for weeks on this. I can't believe you're asking this question.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: This was precisely the debate we had in relation to clause 85. The term “living organism” is defined, and therefore we would not have a power to define it again. The word “respecting” allows you to make regulations relating to living organisms without getting caught in the legal difficulty of being stuck by the word “defining”. That's why we've proposed this change.
The Chairman: Ms. Torsney, does this amendment, G-12.2, replace G-13 on page 241?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It does, as does G-12.3. The two of them replace G-13.
The Chairman: So the two of them are replaced by G-12.2.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sorry; 12.2 and 12.3 replace G-13.
The Chairman: Fine. Thank you.
Mr. Stoffer, do you have a question?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, Mr. Chair; I have to leave. I would just reiterate that if it's possible, perhaps any NDP amendments that come up could be stood down until my colleague, Mr. Laliberte, comes back.
Thank you, sir, and thank you, committee.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further questions on “respecting”? Are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: We still are on clause 114, but we go to G-12.3. It's a similar amendment.
Would you like to introduce it, parliamentary secretary, please?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move government amendment 12.3. The effect of this, were it to pass, would be to replace the first word of paragraph 114(1)(c), “prescribing”, with “respecting”.
The Chairman: No questions or comments?
The Chairman: Now we come to clause 115, which was stood yesterday along with clauses 116 to 119. Clause 120 was carried, and 121 stood.
• 1640
The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I was going to suggest that the next thing would be to move into clause 122, but as there are two NDP amendments, I gather we need to stand those down and move to 123.
The Chairman: Correct. We will respect the request by our colleagues from the NDP, put aside clause 122, and deal with that tomorrow.
The Chairman: On clause 127 there is another NDP amendment; perfect timing. There is an amendment from Mr. Heron, but we might as well deal with all of them together. So we will not touch clause 127.
The Chairman: We will move briskly to clause 128, where there is a government amendment on page 256 in the big book.
Would you like to introduce it, parliamentary secretary?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to introduce government amendment G-14. If members have the bill before them, it's on page 94, toward the bottom, in line 31.
The effect of this would be to remove, in subclause 128(5), “Before issuing the permit”. The reason for this is that in an emergency situation, we want the minister to be able to issue a permit immediately—that is, to offer to consult and endeavour to follow recommendations but also to be able to deal with an emergency.
So we'd like to remove those words, “Before issuing the permit”, and add “offer to” in terms of consultation with a foreign state.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
The Chairman: Clause 130 was amended a long time ago. Shall it carry as amended?
The Chairman: Clause 133 has an NDP amendment, as does clause 134.
• 1645
There is an amendment by Mr. Herron.
Would you like to deal with that Tuesday? Will you be here?
Mr. John Herron: I will be.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The Bloc Québécois is moving an amendment to section 135.
[English]
No, it's an amendment from the Reform Party. It's on page 261 of your large book.
Mr. Gilmour, would you like to introduce your amendment?
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Yes, I will move it. It's self-explanatory. It simply ensures that the minister shall consult with the affected provinces when dealing with coastal zone management strategy.
The Chairman: Are there any comments by the parliamentary secretary?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, Mr. Chair. I would just direct members of Parliament back a couple of pages. We are in the section that in fact deals with ocean dumping. Oceans are an exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and we would not want to force the minister into consultation with the provinces, even though it's generally our style to consult. I think the terminology as used is not appropriate.
The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions in addition to the parliamentary secretary's?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chairman, I would disagree with the parliamentary secretary in that the provinces are very much affected. I don't see simply asking the minister to consult with the provinces as being onerous. I think that is being helpful, in the spirit of cooperation and harmonization.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: I'd like to concur with the comments made by my colleague from Reform. This country is a federation, and the provinces are partners. At the end of the day, very often they have to implement different regulations, and I think the offer to consult our provincial partners makes a lot of sense.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments?
The Chairman: We have a variety of amendments to clause 140.
The parliamentary secretary and Madam Kraft Sloan.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you. I seek unanimous consent to stand clause 140 and come back to it.
The Chairman: It hasn't been moved, so we can do that without unanimous consent. We will set it aside.
• 1650
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, might I ask that we stand down clause 145?
The Chairman: All right.
The Chairman: Shall clause 153 carry as amended by the blanket amendment that was approved by the committee a hundred years ago?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Madam Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 166 has a variety of amendments, including two from the New Democratic Party. I guess we've established that we're going to hold down those clauses until Tuesday.
The Chairman: All right.
The Chairman: Would you please turn to page 275? There is an amendment in the name of Mr. Herron for clause 167.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, this amendment is contingent on the amendment that's on page 268, which we stood down because there were NDP amendments on that same clause. Given that they're connected, can I delay until we do clause 166 on Tuesday?
The Chairman: All right, we'll do them together.
• 1655
The Chairman: Clause 176 is heavily loaded with four amendments by colleagues who are not here, except for the new government one.
The Chairman: Clause 179 was previously amended.
The Chairman: Please turn to page 283. There is Reform amendment 18, in the name of Mr. Gilmour.
Sir, would you like to introduce it?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'll move the amendment, on page 283, to clause 185. It's self-explanatory, really. It says:
This means it's a cost recovery program and not a tax. It just directs the cost towards the program.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
Perhaps I could direct members' attention to clause 328, which sets out the principles by which we set fees related to this bill and government policy in general.
Further, I don't support the amendment as it's written.
The Chairman: Would you elaborate on clause 328?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Subclause 328(3) particularly focuses in on this:
So I think the goal of the member opposite is achieved in subclause 328(3), and it's not necessary here.
The Chairman: Any comments or questions? Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, I would just ask the drafters whether or not there'd be any harm in putting it in twice in that regard.
Would there be any harm in that, Mr. Cameron?
Mr. Bill Gilmour: No, I will withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: Clauses 186, 187, 188, and 189 have NDP amendments.
• 1700
The Chairman: There is a Liberal amendment for clause 194.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we stand down clause 194, please?
The Chairman: Yes, we can.
The Chairman: Clause 201 was amended previously.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Clause 202 has an amendment that's been proposed by Mr. Moffet.
The Chairman: Can we deal with Mr. Moffet's amendment now? Are you ready? Or do you want to wait for the Senate...?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.
The Chairman: So we will stand 202.
The Chairman: Clause 213 was amended previously.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Can we stand that one down, please?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have an amendment, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: That is on page 311. Would you please introduce it.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
I'm happy to move government amendment 14.3, which is on page 311 in your book. Again, this reflects earlier amendments we've made to use the language “enforcement officer” throughout the bill.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? If not, are you ready for the question?
The Chairman: There is another amendment by the government, G-15, to close clause 217.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd like to move government amendment G-15. The effect of this is to remove the reference to an inspector.
• 1705
The Chairman: You will find it on page 313.
Are there any questions or comments?
The Chairman: Do we have any amendments?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move government amendment 15.1. There are a couple of references to enforcement officer and a couple of references to the whole process of warrants and persons authorized to enter companies. Basically, it's all related to enforcement officer again.
Perhaps we could have Mr. Cameron comment.
The Chairman: I am informed that if G-14.3 is adopted, then it has the effect of cutting off, I'm told, G-15.1, in which case we will have to go back, or take some remedial action.
Would you like to comment, Mr. Cameron?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'll take responsibility for this. I moved G-15.1 in error.
The Chairman: So G-15.1 is not moved.
Can we have unanimous consent for its withdrawal?
The Chairman: So now we go to 218. You have already introduced 218. The parliamentary secretary has already done so.
Mr. Cameron, would you like to explain that amendment?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Certainly.
The amendment has three parts to it. Part A will allow any authorized person to accompany an enforcement officer when inspecting a dwelling place, provided the other person is identified in the warrant. This will allow people such as analysts to attend with enforcement officers when conducting investigations.
Part B is simply a consequential amendment to change the word to “enforcement officer”, as we've seen before.
Part C is simply a drafting clarification to indicate that when an enforcement officer indicates a vehicle shall stop, the driver is obligated to stop.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Any questions or comments?
The Chairman: So G-16 will not be moved, we assume here at the table, and neither will G-17.
• 1710
Is the parliamentary secretary confirming?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes. G-17 will not be moved. Thank you.
The Chairman: There are two amendments by the government to clause 220.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm happy to move government amendment 17.1, which again is consequential. It's all related to the enforcement officer.
Just for clarification, I won't be moving amendment G-18.
The Chairman: Are there any questions on amendment G-17.1 in clause 220, or any comments?
The Chairman: There is a government amendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I would like to move government amendment 18.1. I will not be moving government amendment G-19.
Again, a lot of it relates to the enforcement officer. It just clarifies the wording.
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron, would you like to amplify?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: Yes. There's an additional change in that in the current wording in the bill, we refer only to ships, aircraft, platforms or other structures that may be seized under section 220. We felt there may be other things that may be seized under that general authority that are not ships, aircraft, platforms or other structures, so we've changed those words to simply say any “thing” seized. It broadens the scope.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
Are there any questions or comments?
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I will move amendment G-20. This is in further reference to Mr. Cameron's comments. Rather than be restrictive, we want options. So “thing” has replaced “ship, aircraft, platform or other structure”.
The Chairman: Is there a definition of “thing” in the definitions section in clause 3? It's an innocent question. It's only to enquire as to whether there is a need for a definition in the definitions section.
It's not necessary? All right.
Are there any questions or comments?
The Chairman: Clause 223 was amended previously.
• 1715
The Chairman: There is again a government amendment, on page 331.
Could we have a thorough explanation for this deletion, please?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Sure.
First of all, I'm happy to move government amendment 21 on page 331 in your binders. The effect of it is to delete subclause 224(5), on page 164 of your bill.
I will turn to the legal eagles to give you a further definition.
The Chairman: Please go ahead.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: The purpose of the subclause was to ensure that the minister did not retain seized goods indefinitely—in other words, for a long period of time—and to allow an individual from whom goods have been seized to seek an application from the court.
The purpose of the subclause is to say that where 90 days after the seizure have expired, the judge shall order the return of that good. This amendment will allow the minister to retain the seized goods where the court takes longer than 90 days to issue its decision.
So the deletion is simply an attempt to recognize that the court system may take longer than 90 days to resolve the matter before it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
Are there any comments or questions?
[Translation]
Yes, Ms. Girard-Bujold.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I would like to go back to the wording of the French version of the amendment to subclause 221(2), which is incorrect. It reads: "dans le lieu du Canada équipé." That is incorrect usage in French. It should read: "dans le lieu au Canada équipé."
The Chairman: If I may, Ms. Girard-Bujold, I would like to finish up with this clause before going back to clause 221.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Okay.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: To the officials, how often would we need more than 90 days to do this type of thing?
Mr. Duncan Cameron: It's not us needing the time; it's where a matter before the court and the judge takes longer than 90 days.
Mr. John Herron: Does it happen that often?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It depends.
Mr. Duncan Cameron: It certainly is quite possible. The court system is extremely overworked, and there are tremendous delays in getting issues processed through the courts.
Mr. John Herron: Maybe we should have passed last night's bill.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, you said that the translation was incorrect.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We need to go back to the wording of the amendment to subclause 221(2), which reads as follows: "dans le lieu du Canada équipé." That is unidiomatic in French; it should read: "dans le lieu au Canada équipé." The word "équipé" cannot apply to Canada; it refers back to the word "lieu". The word "équipé" must qualify the place. The wording in the bill is okay. It says: "dans le port ou lieu du Canada", but it is incorrect to refer only to "dans le lieu du Canada." That is what we call a typo and it is unacceptable. It is not the same thing.
• 1720
The Chairman: It would be preferable to say: "au Canada."
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.
The Chairman: We note your observation and we will draw it to the attention of the Department of Justice, which will examine your proposal and make the change as required.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The wording for this subclause in the bill was correct, but a mistake slipped in when the amendment was made. You can say: "dans le port ou lieu du Canada" but not: "dans le lieu du Canada équipé."
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. We will check the text to make sure that it is accurate and make the necessary changes.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: Clause 225 was previously amended. Shall it carry?
The Chairman: Clause 226 has one government amendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: In the book, I guess it looks as though it might have two, but in fact I'll just be moving government amendment 21.1. Again, this is clarifying that rather than investigator, it's just an enforcement officer.
I will not be moving government amendment 22.
The Chairman: Thank you.
You heard the amendment. Any comments or questions?
The Chairman: This is on page 337.
Please go ahead.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
I would like to move government amendment 22.1. Again, we're cleaning up the language and making it consistent. It will be enforcement officer.
I will not be moving government amendment 23.
The Chairman: You heard the amendment. Are there any comments or questions?
The Chairman: There is a government amendment to clause 228.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I would move this government amendment 23.1. Again, enforcement officer replaces previously used language.
I will not be moving government amendment 24.
The Chairman: Thank you.
You heard the amendment. Are there any comments or questions?
The Chairman: Clause 229 was previously amended.
The Chairman: Clause 235 was previously amended.
The Chairman: Clause 237 was previously amended.
• 1725
The Chairman: There is another government amendment, page 345.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would be happy to move government amendment 24.1. Once again, it ensures the language is consistent in terms of “enforcement officer” being used.
The Chairman: You have heard the amendment. Are there any questions?
The Chairman: Clause 239 was previously amended.
The Chairman: Clause 241 was previously amended.
The Chairman: There are two amendments to clause 242.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'd be happy to move government amendment 24.2. It's on page 346. Again, it's replacing the language in the bill with “enforcement officer”.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Government amendment 24.3 would also amend clause 242. It's on page 347. Again, it's “enforcement officer”.
The Chairman: Now we have clauses 243 to 246, inclusive, without amendments. Shall they carry?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, can we please stand down clause 244?
The Chairman: All right.
[Translation]
The Chairman: There is a Bloc Québécois motion on page 348. Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I move that the following words be added to the end of clause 247:
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure native participation when the review must take place on native lands. Since we are always telling native peoples that we consult them on everything that affects them, I think that it is important to tell them here that if revisions relating to their land are made, they will participate in the review. That is why I move this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.
[English]
Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Herron.
Mr. John Herron: I'd like to speak in support of the Bloc amendment. I think it's the right thing to do in order to ensure that we're consulting our first nations.
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Chair, I'm not in favour of the amendment.
I would turn it over to possibly Mr. Mongrain or Mr. Cameron for further comment.
The Chairman: Mr. Cameron or Mr. Mongrain, s'il vous plaît.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: Clause 247 relates to a review process for environmental compliance orders. It's a quasi-judicial function by the chief review officer appointed under the provisions in the act.
• 1730
The amendment as proposed would have members,
nominated by the aboriginal people, who might be
subject to the order and sit
on the body that judges
the fairness of the order.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Conflict of interest.
Mr. Steve Mongrain: Precisely; it could establish a conflict of interest.
All of these clauses set up a review process for environmental compliance orders. These are orders where an enforcement officer essentially stops an activity that's contravening the law. To ensure that this power is not arbitrary, the bill proposes a review process by an independent review officer. The amendment would require that review to be done by a person appointed by the aboriginal people.
Let me take a hypothetical example in the case of industry. An analogous or similar situation with regard to applying to a certain industry would be that rather than an independent, industry would have a right to put somebody on the board or to conduct a review of that order.
[Translation]
It is in the context of the provisions.
[English]
if you read them in their entirety.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The amendment that I am moving does not contain the meaning that the gentleman is attributing to it. It refers to reviews on aboriginal lands. I am not talking about representatives from an industry or a plant. I am proposing that in a case of review of aboriginal lands, that an aboriginal review officer be appointed—some aboriginals are renowned environmental specialists—and that he be granted similar powers and rights. My interpretation of this amendment is quite different from that gentleman's and I don't understand the context of his version at all.
[English]
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Perhaps, Madam Girard-Bujold, I could suggest a friendly amendment.
In clause 247, it says a person has to be “knowledgeable about the Canadian environment, environmental health or administrative law”. We could also say, in that list, that they are knowledgeable about aboriginal issues as opposed to being strictly from that community itself.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you referring to clause 242?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Clause 247.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Clause 242? It is clause 247.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So we could look at your amendment, and include, following “where the order to be reviewed was made in relation to aboriginal land”, “knowledge of aboriginal issues” as well, or something to that effect.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That suggestion is closer to the objective I am trying to achieve then that gentleman's version; he was saying the exact opposite. My amendment is designed to recognize the fact that natives are entitled to qualified Native review officers on their land. Canada has always boasted about giving natives their autonomy, and I would like us to recognize the right to autonomy in this clause of the Bill. As it stands, the Parliamentary Secretary is doing the opposite of what Mr. Chrétien and the other governments that have been elected for generations have said. They got the natives to believe that they recognize them. For me, it is important to recognize their jurisdiction.
[English]
The Chairman: The parliamentary secretary, please.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Thank you.
I'm quite interested in what Mrs. Kraft Sloan has proposed. This might be a good time for us to break and come back and consider this on Tuesday. That way we would have the chance to think about the issues involved, and perhaps have some discussions amongst ourselves tomorrow.
• 1735
The Chairman: That's a very wise suggestion.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm getting older.
The Chairman: When we resume, we will start at clause 247. We will complete this one and then pick up the remnants.
[Translation]
Do you agree, Ms. Girard-Bujold?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I will reread the amendment and we can come back to it on Tuesday.
The Chairman: Okay, we will work together. Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.
[English]
Tomorrow we will meet at 9 a.m. in room 308 of this building. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned.