CHPC Committee Meeting

    Order.

     We are discussing committee business today.

    We have a motion by Mr. Del Mastro:

    Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr. Del Mastro?

    Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As committee members well know, the intent behind this was that there were a number of recommendations that the committee members would like affixed to a report with respect to the Trade Routes and PromArt programs. Although PromArt is not a file handled by the Department of Canadian Heritage, they would like to make recommendations in that regard.

    I'd like to bring the Canada Council forward to talk about the additional investments that we've made into artists to demonstrate that we have stood up and supported artists very significantly and that there's a significant amount of money going into.... That's the broader issue. Obviously, the direct issue is with respect to international touring. I'd like them to talk about the money that they are providing vis-à-vis the significant additional investments that we've provided to the Canada Council. I think it's important that we get this on the public record and that Canadians hear what the Canada Council has to say on that.

    Mr. Angus.

    Thank you.

    I'm beginning to feel like I'm cast in that movie Groundhog Day. I mean, we had this whole discussion last week.

     If we want to have the discussion again, we can. I fully support bringing the Canada Council here; I think it's an excellent idea. But having just agreed to work on the television industry crisis and with everyone agreeing this is a priority, I'm surprised this motion is being brought back.

    We had a study on the issue of the effects of touring cuts. All parties were able to bring forward witnesses. It was an open witness list. Nobody from the Conservatives, at that time, thought the Canada Council should be there.

     People directly spoke about the Canada Council arts funding in one hearing, and they said that contrary to what was being promoted by the government, the Canada Council funding was not replacing the loss. Nobody from the Conservative Party on the committee at that time challenged that testimony.

    We're now at the final stages of a report, based on testimony we heard and the agreement of how many witnesses we would have, and certainly nobody from the Conservatives wanted to extend it for more than two and a half days of hearings.

    I would suggest that we finish the business at hand and then, when time allows, we'll certainly have the Canada Council, because I think we would have a full, good session with them, on many issues.

    I would support this motion at a later date.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Bruinooge and then Ms. Lavallée.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to speak in support of this motion. I think it's integral to bring the Canada Council in so we can hear exactly what the parliamentary secretary has indicated: clearly they have invested a lot of money in supporting international promotion for artists.

    I think one of the reasons Mr. Angus would support them coming in later, to some extent, is that it would undermine this report that's about to be presented. In light of the fact that this report is being wrapped up, I think it's essential that we have this counterpoint as early as possible .

     It would be nice to see them come in the next couple of weeks. I think it would be a good time for it.

    Okay.

    Ms. Lavallée.

    I think it's extremely important that we meet the Canada Council people, especially if some of their grant programs can replace those that were cut. I'm definitely going to ask them that question. I'm going to talk to them about specific issues, such as the Grands Ballets Canadiens, whose members want to go to the Middle East. I'm going to ask them which program could address that. I'm sure that, if they give me a positive answer, that will make for a lot of happy artists, creators and all those who have foreign tour plans.

    I don't know when that will be possible. If Mr. Del Mastro could make it so we have some time, at some point, I would be prepared to look into that. Of course, we would have preferred to know sooner, but I'm pleased at the idea of meeting these people. They're going to be able to tell us which programs they offer. Let's remember that artists have appeared and told us that the council had programs, but that they weren't compatible. We'll see what the situation is.

    Thank you.

    Madam Dhalla.

    I think it is important to hear from them, to provide us with an insight of what types of programs they are providing. And in regard to the cuts that took place, I think it is important to hear how the people who have lost funding, either organizations or individuals, would benefit from the programs the Canada Council has at the moment.

    Perhaps one option the committee may want to consider is that we do a written set of questions and ask them to provide that information in writing.

    Okay.

    Mr. Del Mastro.

    It seems that we have some broad agreement that people would like to hear from the Canada Council.

    I would recommend an extra sitting of the committee. I don't care if it's a Monday or Wednesday, or a Tuesday or Thursday, or even a later session of the committee. It doesn't need to interfere with the television hearing. I'd recommend an extra session of the committee as soon as possible.

    Ms. Lavallée.

    I thought there was nothing scheduled for Wednesday. I have a motion to the effect that we meet with Mr. Hubert Lacroix, from CBC/Radio-Canada. We are bringing plans forward, but I believe that Mr. Lacroix won't be available. I'm not sure of that; that still has to be confirmed. If he were available, a slot would be free. Perhaps we could meet with the Canada Council people in the first hour and complete our report in the second.

     I don't know if that would be considerate to call them, literally, on a day and a half's notice, because you have some members of their board in Montreal, some in Toronto, and some in various other places. If they could accommodate that, great; but if not, immediately after the break, we could certainly accommodate them with additional meeting times.

    Mr. Angus.

    I guess I'm getting a little confused here, Mr. Chair. I thought we would be finalizing our report on Wednesday. That report was brought forward by Madame Lavallée. We've done all of this study, so I'm surprised that we're now not looking at doing that and are going on to talk about her next motion.

    We have to finish the business. It doesn't matter to me how we finish the business, but I want this report done, because it's going to look silly that we've already forgotten about the report and then are going on to other parts of it and bringing in new witnesses. So either we are ready to finish the report—which we were going to do as of last week—and finalize it on Wednesday, or we're going to start bringing in new witnesses and then finalize the report. Or perhaps we're going to finalize the report and then bring in new witnesses--I'm not sure.

    We need to have a little bit of clarity here, because we're now starting a whole new report.

    I'm going to ask Marion to address that question.

     I would just let you know that the draft of the report will be available at the end of the day, because we just received the translation...when?

    This afternoon.

    Yes, I think we have to keep that in mind, because it was the business of the day on Wednesday to finalize this, and we knew it would be coming forward. If we can go over the draft report, we can then decide.

    The other couple of issues we have here today include the finalization of the report—

    So we need to finish this report.

    Yes.

    If people want to hear from the Canada Council and do that for another hour, or whatever, later, I don't mind. But we'll look like a bush league if we've agreed to a witness list, we've heard testimony, we're finalizing a report, and then we want to start doing something else.

    So I'd like to finalize this report. If we're going to hear from the Canada Council at another time, fit it in, as long as it doesn't interfere with what we're doing on the television report.

    I would just suggest that it's unfair to our analysts to have two, three, or four irons in the fire at the same time.

    Yes.

    Ms. Lavallée, and then Mr. Del Mastro.

    We talked about the study of the report, but there is also my motion. I was wondering when you were considering introducing it.

    Afterwards.

    Immediately after or before the study?

    Before.

     Mr. Del Mastro.

    I don't require you to make any changes to the body of the report, but I would like to have the Canada Council in, so I can include their testimony in my supplemental report—or whatever you call it.

    Dissenting report.

    I just want a little time. Following this would be fine. I want to add their testimony to my dissenting report, because I believe their testimony will in fact provide some documentation to back up what the government's claims have been.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but we will be getting that draft report and we'll look at it on Wednesday and will make whatever changes we want, but we won't approve the report until we see the final copy, right?

    We don't approve it until we see the final copy, correct.

    Mr. Angus.

    I think what's been suggested here is a little bizarre. We've had a witness list and we're finalizing a report. He's asking to have other witnesses after we've had our final report, so he can have a dissenting report based on another set of witnesses. His report has to be based on the testimony we heard. We agreed to a witness list. We agreed we were only going to do this for two or three days. I remember Madame Lavallée and Mr. Rodriguez suggesting many, many witnesses, but all of us pared the list down, because we said were going to go on to other business.

    So I don't see why at this point we should agree to another set of witnesses just so we can have their view in a dissenting report. We're finishing this report; it's going to be done. If at another point we want to talk to the Canada Council, we can. But testimony was brought forward here, people spoke about the Canada Council, and nobody on the Conservative side questioned that at the time. So it's absurd that we're going to hold a special meeting so he can fit its results into a dissenting report.

    I'm going to call the question:

    Mr. Del Mastro.

     I would just like to add an amendment to that. I would like this hearing to be held prior to the finalization of the report that the committee undertook with respect to international touring.

    Okay, an amendment.

    An hon. member: That's too much.

    I'm not asking for too much; it's entirely reasonable.

    Mr. Angus.

    Mr. Chair, again, I think it's entirely disrespectful of this committee. We've asked our researchers to prepare a report based on testimony, and now we're turning it into a kangaroo court. We had a witness list. Everybody could submit to that witness list. Testimony was brought forward. People were given a chance to challenge it at that time.

    Now we are finalizing the report. You've given them instructions to finalize the report. Mr. Del Mastro made it clear he would have a dissenting report. Now we're going to have a witness so he can fill it up with a dissenting report. It's getting to the point of absurdity.

    I say we vote on the question. We can have them come at a later date, but our report has nearly been finalized. We've given instructions to the clerks. We have to finish that job.

    Ms. Dhalla.

    I think it is important to hear from the Canada Council, but I have two things. I agree with Mr. Del Mastro that he wants to bring the Canada Council forward to allow them to provide testimony, but I think this should have been brought forward beforehand, as Mr. Angus is saying. When we were discussing the list of witnesses, everyone had an opportunity to provide that to the clerk. I don't know why.... Perhaps Mr. Del Mastro can provide us with information as to why they were not called or invited at that particular point in time.

    To have the information that they provide now included in the report is asking for a bit too much. We have had a chance to hear from all of the witnesses. The analysts have spent a lot of time putting together the report. I don't want to call forward a set of witnesses so that Mr. Del Mastro and the team can put together their dissenting report. I'm sure they already have the information.

    I would be interested in hearing from the Canada Council, and I think we may want to take on Mr. Angus's suggestion that we do it at a later point. Or, alternatively, I think it may be best for the committee to provide a written set of questions to the Canada Council. They can provide us with written information and we can review it at our leisure, versus having them come forward and having the report changed. It's asking for a bit too much and it's not something that we could support.

    Mr. Del Mastro.

    Contrary to what Mr. Angus has said, I specifically asked questions of the deputy minister when the deputy minister was here with respect to support for international touring provided by the Canada Council and whether she could verify that the Canada Council was in fact receiving an additional $31 million per year under this government. That was a question I specifically put. Unfortunately, that, in my view, is not reflected in the recommendations or the findings of this committee.

    Now, it's because I didn't know what the report indicated, and secondly, I didn't know that the recommendations brought forward would be brought forward in such a manner that we wouldn't have an opportunity to actually review the findings or the documentation of the report.

    As you well know, Mr. Chair, I did bring this motion previously. I gave notice of this motion prior to the report being completed, prior to being given a draft of the minutes of the meeting, if you will, by the analyst. It was not deemed by the committee.... I don't think I'm saying anything I can't say. It didn't pass. So here I am back in public, asking why am I not allowed to bring this testimony forward to be part of this report?

    To say that I'm trying to tack a witness on or I'm trying to bolster my case.... I've been at this for more than two weeks, three weeks, to bring them in as a witness, because I wanted them to come in and back up what the deputy minister had said. As you know, the Canada Council is artists helping artists. We have provided substantially more support for the Canada Council. They are providing money for touring and they're providing money for an awful lot more with respect to the arts. Their testimony is paramount to their support being reflective, in any way, of the reality of arts funding in Canada right now.

    If you want to slam the door and say we don't want to hear them before we come forward with this report, then that will also be reflected in both the release I'll put out today and my dissenting report that we don't want to hear from the Canada Council prior to putting forward a report that misrepresents the reality of this government's support for the arts, and specifically international touring.

    Ms. Lavallée, then Ms. Dhalla.

    Mr. Del Mastro, I really want the representatives of the Canada Council for the Arts to come and testify. I would like to meet them and get the information they have to give us. If that could enable our artists to do the tours for which funding has been cut, I wouldn't want to miss that information. I really want them to come and testify. It's not that I don't want that to be part of the report, but I think we're putting the cart before the horse. We're operating in a sequence that isn't logical.

    Mr. Del Mastro, I'm asking you, in a friendly way, to change two things in your motion. The motion begins as follows: “That the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage calls to appear, at its earliest convenience, [...]” I'm asking that we delete the words “at its earliest convenience” because we're currently conducting another study. It's not that I don't want to hear from them; I'm prepared to hold a special meeting. I'm even prepared to go and meet them with you tomorrow morning, Mr. Del Mastro. However, we have to respect the business of our committee.

    Second, I've never understood the last sentence, which ends as follows: “[...] and the vote be a public one.” I'd like you to explain that to me. I entirely agree that the findings should be reported back to the House, but I don't understand why you're requesting a public vote.

     What I'm saying, Madame Lavallée, is that this is not the first time I've brought this motion. But I can't talk publicly about the fact that the motion was defeated when it was brought forward previously. If this motion fails, I would like to be able to come forward and talk about it publicly.

    That wasn't the same one.

    We'll have Ms. Dhalla and then Mrs. Glover.

    I have two points.

    To my recollection, this motion has not been brought forward before. In terms of this particular wording, this is the first time we're seeing it.

    Second, with all due respect to Mr. Del Mastro, I don't think anyone wants to be threatened that if we don't support this, there's going to be a press release issued and so forth. I think we're all interested in hearing from the Canada Council. I think there was a due process in place. Having a dissenting report, which you want issued, included in the report I don't think does justice to the whole process of the committee. But if we want to hear from the Canada Council, that is something I am in agreement with.

    Okay. We'll go to Mrs. Glover and then to Mr. Angus.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I've listened intently to what the committee members have said, and I appreciate what our colleagues are saying: it's important to hear from the Canada Council. Ms. Dhalla has said it. Ms. Lavallée and Mr. Angus have said it. It would be irresponsible of us not to include what it is they have to say in a report. The report would be incomplete. It would not have a basis for completion for the general public or for the artists we are trying to help. I believe it's important that we include whatever it is they have to say in that report. I think we all agree that it's important. Get it into the report. Let's finish this business and move on to the next order of business.

    Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

    Thank you.

     This is becoming bizarre. We have a press release that's all ready to go if we don't jump to Mr. Del Mastro's tune, and we'll be slammed.

    I'm looking at this notice of motion, and I don't see anywhere in it that this has anything to do with the study. We are finished our study. If he wants to bring it forward so that what we find in that meeting can be reported back to the House, so be it. But it is a kangaroo court. After the witness lists have been drawn up, after everybody has gone through it, after the recommendations have been given to our clerks so they can finalize the study, the study has been finalized. We will vote on that on Wednesday at the meeting.

    If we strike “at its earliest convenience”, and we call to appear the Canada Council for the Arts, I support that motion. I think it's an excellent motion. But it has nothing to do with the previous study, because it was not brought forward at that time. So we will hear that testimony, and we will report it to the House. In fact, we might hear such wonderful news on touring that we report that to the House, but that's a separate study.

    I would make a friendly amendment and say that we strike “at its earliest convenience”. Then we vote on bringing them forward, and we fit them into the schedule whenever. We'll continue with the business at hand.

    If he accepts a friendly amendment, I'm more than willing to move it at this point, and we can vote on it and be done.

    We're voting on an amendment that states that they be called prior to the finalization of this report.

    No, it doesn't say that.

    That's the amendment we're talking about right now. I added an amendment to the motion.

     I'm going to call a vote on the amendment.

    The amendment says, at the end, “prior to the finalization of the report”.

    (Amendment negatived)

    I voted against, but I'll do another motion.

    I really want to hear from the Canada Council representatives.

    Okay.

    My motion is that we call them to appear--whenever. They're going to come, and that's a separate piece of business. We'll just strike “at its earliest convenience”. We call them to appear.

    I'd like to debate the amendment, please.

    Mr. Del Mastro.

    Striking “at its earliest convenience” means that we may not hear from them until sometime after June.

    Listen, if people want to hear from the Canada Council--and that's what they're saying--then people know that this is something I've been working on for weeks. This is not something new. I would propose we schedule an additional meeting at the earliest possible convenience. If they can be here Wednesday, Thursday, tomorrow, fine. Let's call them and find out when they can be here. Let's schedule a meeting at the earliest possible convenience and let's get them in here.

    What have we to fear with the Canada Council's appearing? Let's have them here and let's hear what they have to say. I'd like to hear from them on their support for international promotion and touring. I'd like to talk to them a little bit about what they're doing everywhere else and what they're doing with the additional money they've been provided.

    Okay.

    I'd like to vote on my amendment. I think we've talked this out. My amendment is just to strike “at its earliest convenience”, which means we will hear from them. I don't think we need to get our knickers in a knot. We will hear from them. Let's vote on my amendment.

    We'll vote on the amendment put forward by Mr. Angus. The motion would read:

    Point of order.

    Yes, Mr. Del Mastro.

    The most we could be doing right now would be voting on the amendment, which is to strike “at its earliest convenience”. We are not voting on the motion as amended, because if this passes, I'm going to propose another amendment.

    Okay. The amendment is that we strike “at its earliest convenience” from the motion. That's the amendment.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    I'd like to speak to the motion, please.

    Mr. Del Mastro.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to add after the word “appear” the words “as soon as possible”.

    The reason I feel it's critical that we hear from them as soon as possible is that I think they have testimony that this committee should be prepared to hear as soon as possible. If they're not prepared to hear it as soon as possible, I'd like to know what their agenda is with not wanting to hear from them. We're here anyway. Let's ask them to be here as soon as possible so that we can hear what they have to say.

    Mr. Chair, didn't we just rule on this? This is getting--

    We did not just rule on this.

    We've been going back and forth a little bit here.

    Call the question.

    There's been an amendment made by Mr. Del Mastro to the motion that after “calls to appear”, we add “as soon possible”.

    (Amendment negatived)

    Ms. Glover, please.

    Mr. Chair, as a new member of Parliament, I am in awe that we, as parliamentarians who have a job to do for Canadians, are opting to do it half-assed and we're attempting to put forward a report that we all understand is not complete.

    That's not in your motion.

    My amendment is that we have a special meeting to invite the Canada Council here to meet with this heritage committee to provide the details and information that they have to provide that is relevant to this study.

    Chair, that's another motion. We have a motion. You can't just start freeforming motions.

    If you want to refer to the original proposed motion, we could add after “to appear” the words “in the week of April 20”.

    Can we just vote on the motion, Mr. Chair? They're freeforming now.

    We're not freeforming. This is how the committee works, Charlie.

    You spoke six times and I spoke twice.

    We voted on the motion. We voted on “as soon as possible”, “at the earliest possible convenience”, and now it's April 20. Can we just vote on the motion that we're going to bring the Canada Council?

    Okay.

    All right, Charlie, I get it. You don't want to hear from the Canada Council in the timeframe that would actually--

    No, I'm totally supportive of that.

    No, you're not fully supportive, because you don't want to hear from them during a timeframe where we might be able to quote what they have to say--

    Is this going to be a ten percenter in my riding, Dean?

    I'm losing control of this committee. Address the chair, please, everybody.

    Mr. Bruinooge has something to say.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     I'm just going to speak to the amendment that's been proposed by Madam Glover. I think that since this date being suggested is after the break week, it's adequate time for the Canada Council to draft their submission and to line up the witnesses they deem appropriate. They have witnesses who I'm sure they'll want to draw from across the country, and I think that week is an appropriate week.

    I know Madame Lavallée has expressed a lot of interest in having Canada Council come. This particular amendment makes no reference to any report or anything of that nature. I can't see why Madame Lavallée wouldn't support bringing Canada Council in during that week. It wouldn't interrupt any of our business.

    So I think this is a good amendment, and I think it would be a good way for us to hear from such an important body, so that we can deliver that information to the artists who we're all wanting to support.

    Mr. Angus, please.

    Mr. Chair, I'm just asking for a ruling here, because this is starting to get silly. When you bring in an amendment and it gets defeated, you can't continue to bring similar amendments, or variations on the amendment.

    We agreed that we will bring in Canada Council. We will work towards that, and that can be reported back to the House. We've all agreed on that. If we defeat this, and then it's like what, about April 21, April 22...?

    Parliamentary procedure is very clear. We had a motion. It was voted down. We have a new motion. It's very straightforward, and we can't keep going back to the previous motion. I'd like to call the question on this. I think the amendments to the other motion are getting to the point of absurdity, and we could just deal with this, that we do want Canada Council, end of story.

    I think this amendment is not necessarily exactly the same as the first or the second. So we'll vote on this amendment, and then we'll vote on the question.

    Madame Lavallée, do you have a question?

    I would simply like to respond to Mr. Bruinooge.

    I repeat that I agree we should meet with the Canada Council. There is the wording and the spirit of the motion. That's why we generally ask the mover to introduce and comment on it.

    When Mr. Del Mastro commented on it, he said that he wanted it to be included in the report. I thought we were hearing from the Canada Council to inquire into its activities. Since I'm used to saying what I think, I'm going to say what I really think.

    Even though I really want to hear from the Canada Council officials and to learn about the programs it offers to creators and artists, I get the impression they'll be coming to conduct a public relations exercise, at the request of the minister's parliamentary secretary and perhaps that of the minister. They will be coming to show off about the programs they offer and the money they distribute to make us forget what they're not distributing. I'm quite convinced of that.

    I hope I'm mistaken and that it won't be an exercise in boasting, but that we'll really shed some light on the problems artists are experiencing. For example, the Grands Ballets Canadiens needs $250,000 to do its Middle East tour. If the Canada Council can tell me from what program it will get that amount and what the deadline is, then I'll agree to hear it. However, I'm not interested in redoing our study and changing the report, for all the reasons I've just noted.

     I have just one clarification. One thing we have to realize here is that the Canada Council is a crown corporation. It's independent of the government, so we want to make sure of that.

    I'm going to ask for a vote on the amendment, that being that we add “during the week of April 20” after “appear”.

    (Amendment negatived)

    I'd like to withdraw the motion.

    Okay.

    So is it on the record that the Conservatives don't want the Canada Council to come and explain--

    No, it's on the record that you don't want them to appear.

    I don't want them to on April 19. I'm absolutely supportive of this motion. I would reintroduce it under my own name. Could I do that? Because I think it's an excellent motion. I'll reintroduce it under my name.

    Okay. Mr. Del Mastro, you're withdrawing the motion?

    The intent of the motion, as you know, Mr. Chair, was to have them come in to speak about the $13 million they have allocated and that is providing support for international promotion and touring. That's why it's important. That's why I talked to the deputy minister about it. It's not reflected in the findings that the opposition wants inserted into the report. So therefore I thought it would be important that we hear from them, but they don't want to hear from them in this respect.

    Would I be interested in hearing from them some day, maybe, who knows when, whenever the opposition sees fit to fit them in? Sure, why not. But it's not the intent of the motion. They have materially changed the motion. Therefore, what is the point in bringing it?

    Are you withdrawing your motion?

    Yes, I withdraw it.

    Mr. Del Mastro has withdrawn the motion.

     Mr. Del Mastro, I don't think anyone on this side of the table doesn't want to hear Canada Council. I think everyone is committed to that. But if you have differing opinions in regard to the report that's going to go forward, there is ample opportunity for you and everyone else you work with to be able to submit a dissenting report and to comment on all of that.

    Oh, no. We wouldn't want that going public.

    I think the report that's going to be brought forward is an accurate reflection and representation of what we heard from the witnesses. If there is information you want included, I'll be more than happy to read the dissenting report that you put forward.

    Okay.

    So we're done with that. So we have Madame's motion.

    We'll just carry on to the next order of business. Is that what I understand?

     I did give proper notice.

    Yes, it would be fair that there be proper notice.

    We'll move on, then, to the second motion, from Ms. Lavallée:

    Ms. Lavallée, would you like to speak to your motion?

    It will be understood that the dates in parentheses are suggestions. That will be at the convenience of the persons we'll be meeting with. From what I've heard, both would be available during the week of April 20. Mr. Hubert Lacroix could appear on April 20, and Mr. Moore on April 22.

    Mr. Del Mastro.

     Mr. Chair, Mr. Lacroix is a witness listed in the study with respect to television. I think this motion is probably redundant, and the minister is not listed as a witness on that study, but that study is so important that we couldn't hear from the Canada Council as soon as possible. Therefore I think the motion is likely redundant.

    In the interests of the committee getting on to this important study that we need to get on to, I don't think we want the minister taking up any time from any of these witnesses, so we had better stick to the witness list, on which Mr. Lacroix is a member.

    Mr. Angus.

    I have no problem with this, because it is part of our study. We have Mr. Lacroix, so I don't think we need to strike anything in a motion. We had talked, and I don't want to tell any secrets out of school, but there was a motion about bringing Minister Moore because he's a key player on broadcasting. He has to be able to speak to us on this because we're not going to know what's happening in broadcasting without having him. So this is an excellent motion and I am totally supportive of it.

    Ms. Dhalla.

    With the impact of the cuts for CBC, especially in regard to job losses they have had across the country, it would be very beneficial to hear from them as soon as possible, so it is something we will be supporting.

    (Motion agreed to)

     The meeting is adjourned.