SINT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 21, 2002

¹

1540

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Mr. Robert Pilon (Executive Vice-President, Coalition for cultural diversity)

Mr. Robert Pilon

¹

1545

¹

1550

Mr. Valeri

¹

1555

Mr. Valeri

M. Paquette

Mr. Robinson

Mr. Robert Pilon

º

1600

º

1605

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Jim Keon (President, Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association)

º

1610

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Jim Keon

º

1615

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Clifford Sosnow (Representative, International Affairs Committee, Canadian Chamber of Commerce)

º

1620

º

1625

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Jim Keon

º

1630

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

º

1635

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Alexander Lofthouse (Policy Analyst, Canadian Chamber of Commerce)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.)

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Pat O'Brien

º

1640

Mr. Jim Keon

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Alexander Lofthouse

Mr. Pat O'Brien

º

1645

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Alexander Lofthouse

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Alexander Lofthouse

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

The Acting Chair (M. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

º

1650

Mr. Valeri

Mr. Alexander Lofthouse

Mr. Jim Keon

Mr. Valeri

Mr. Clifford Sosnow

The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

---

CANADA

Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 027

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), assessment of WTO negotiating issues from a Canadian perspective.

    I'd like to welcome the witnesses here this afternoon. We will start with Mr. Robert Pilon from the Coalition pour la diversité culturelle. Then we'll move down the list.

    I know Mr. Pilon does have a train to catch, so if it is possible, perhaps we could hear Mr. Pilon's presentation and then move to questions specifically for Mr. Pilon before moving on to the other witnesses. If that is okay with the other witnesses, we would appreciate the accommodation. Thank you.

    Mr. Pilon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Pilon (Executive Vice-President, Coalition for cultural diversity): Thank you very much.

    I would like first of all to thank members of the committee for allowing us to appear today. The Coalition for cultural diversity considers that the work of this committee is particularly important. It is not the first time that the committee or the sub-committee deal with these issues, but the context is now different, and I will come back to it in a moment. We are on the verge of very significant developments both in the WTO negotiations and those concerning the Free-Trade Area of the Americas.

    So I believe that this committee's report on the Canadian government priorities regarding these two sets of negotiations, that will come out at the end of this spring, will be very significant.

    I believe that they have circulated to you, together with our brief, this brochure and you can see on the penultimate page the list of associations that are members of the Coalition for cultural diversity. Altogether, there are 32 associations in the areas of culture and cultural industries, organizations regrouping both artists: actors, directors, writers, scriptwriters, musicians, and producers' organizations: film producers, record producers, publishers, broadcasters. In fact, almost all important associations in the area of culture and cultural industries in Canada are represented here.

    The goal of the coalition is simple. It is to ensure that, in the context of trade negotiations, both at the WTO and in other fora, including the FTAA, governments and states can maintain their ability to develop and implement cultural policies that are essential to the existence of that fundamental value that, I believe, is shared by all citizens of the world, that is cultural diversity.

[English]

    Mr. Robert Pilon: The main negotiations now are the World Trade Organization negotiations. Following the Doha conference, there was a ministerial declaration last November and a schedule was established. There will be a lot of negotiations in the Doha Round, or millennium round, of negotiations. They are supposed to be concluded in 2005. There will be negotiations on textiles, agriculture, tariffs, services, eventually on the environment, investment and competition policy, a lot of things.

    The negotiations that are more of a concern for us in the cultural milieu are the negotiations on services. As you know, there was at the end of the last round, the Uruguay Round, an agreement signed in the spring of 1994 in Marrakesh, which is the General Agreement on Trade and Services, the GATS. It was the first time there was a multilateral agreement on services. This agreement is now up for renegotiation. In fact, even if there was very little in the press about it, the negotiations on services were sort of mandated at the end of the last round. They were part of the so-called built-in agenda and they were supposed to start no later than January 2000. In fact, they did start in January or February 2000. So the negotiations on services have been going on for over two years now in Geneva. That includes, formally at least, negotiations on sectors in the cultural sector services, like audiovisual, for instance.

[Translation]

    At the WTO, negotiations on services are going on within a structure of negotiations that is very special, very peculiar. At the end of the last round, when the time came to sign the agreement, member countries of the WTO agreed on a specific feature, namely that countries were free to make or not to make trade liberalization commitments in the different service sectors. Some countries did make commitments to liberalize their policies in the sectors of insurance, accountability, engineering services or other sectors, but did not make any commitment in the cultural sectors. Indeed, the majority of countries did not make any trade liberalization commitment in the cultural service sectors such as the audiovisual sector, music, book publishing, live shows, theater, and so on.

    If one makes an assessment of commitments that have been made, taking into account as well the commitments with limitations, in fact, one can assess the level of commitment at somewhere between 10 or 15%. That is very significant. It means that not only Canada or France, whose position is well known, but a great number of countries throughout the world consider that cultural services are not just like any other services.

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    Cultural services are not like any other commodity. A film, book, or sound recording carries much more than just its economic value. That's why so many countries said we need a special rule. We cannot apply to the production and trade of a film, book, or record the same rule we apply to the trade of pencils, microphones, or whatever other commodity. Those are special goods and services.

[Translation]

    So that is what happened at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations, in March 1994. Canada, for example, made no trade liberalization commitment, and that is extremely important because it means concretely that Canada, like many other countries, maintained its ability to pursue cultural policies.

    For example, we have in Canada several cultural policies in various sectors, particularly in the cultural industries sector, that are particularly sensitive, such as film, television, book publishing, popular music. In these sectors, Canada has different types of policies: financial support policies, for example, whereby monies are available to assist in the area of production, creation, marketing. These amounts are generally earmarked for Canadian individuals or businesses.

    We also have a system of Canadian content quotas that have been put into place by the CRTC, both for television and musical content on the radio. We also have other regulations that, in some sectors, limit foreign ownership. That is the case in the broadcasting sector.

    All of these policies are designed to preserve a space for Canadian artists and to preserve a space in order to faster the development of Canadian controlled cultural industries. That is the aim of these policies.

    Our American friends obviously do not share our point of view. And I believe that this is an issue that must be discussed openly and squarely. Canada, like many other countries throughout the world, do not have the same view of culture as our American friends.

[English]

    For the American government, culture is fine arts, heritage, the symphony, museums, and folk art, maybe.

    In Canada, as well as in France and many countries in South America and Asia—Korea, for instance—the government considers the production and distribution of film, the publishing of books, and the production and distribution of records, TV, and radio to be part of culture. But the Americans don't agree with that. They consider what we call cultural industry to be the entertainment industry. In their minds, a film, book, or record is a commodity like any other commodity, and we should apply the same rules in international trade agreements to those commodities as to any other commodities.

[Translation]

    Such a point of view has very significant implications, because it means...I do not intend to be technical; anyway, I believe that you are familiar with all these issues. Our American friends wish--or rather, they demand that all the rules that are usely applied in international trade, that is market access, without any discrimination, national treatment, the most favored nation clause, be applied to all cultural sectors. If that were the case, it would have a huge impact on cultural policies, particularly in Canada, but also in many other countries throughout the world. For us, it would mean that we would have to dismantle the CRTC, that we could no longer implement regulations such as Canadian content quotas or television or musical content quotas for radio, that the subsidies provided by Telefilm Canada, for example, or by the Canada Council in the case of book publishing, which are for Canadian businesses, would no longer be allowed. That would be considered discriminatory and we would have to eliminate all of these subsidies, or else offer them to foreign multinationals as well. It would be the same for our rules on foreign property in the broadcasting sector. In short, a whole series of policies would be considered unacceptable and even illegal because they would be in contravention of the usual trade rules.

    That is the reason why the government of Canada has already made public clear positions on this issue in terms of the WTO negotiations, and we are rather pleased about it; in March of last year, the government announced its policy position in this regard. The Canadian government does not intend to make any trade liberalization commitment in the cultural sectors within the WTO negotiations, until there is a new international instrument.

    I do not have much time left. I would like, in conclusion, to say a few words on the issue of a new international instrument in the area of culture.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    Canada is playing a leadership role in that field. In recent years, a new concept was developed that all those questions concerning the interface of trade and culture, rather than being discussed in forums like the WTO or any other trade agreement, should be settled once and for all in a new international agreement. It would be something different, a new agreement that would deal with culture and establish the rule and fundamental right of government and state to have cultural policies that favoured and fostered cultural diversity.

    So Canada has been pushing a lot to do that, with the support of many people. The Quebec government has also publicly supported that concept. There is quite an agreement here in Canada. Canada has been trying in recent years to sell this idea to other countries, with some success. An important country like France recently supported that concept, with a high-level declaration by the Prime Minister and the President recently on that.

    Canada is trying to build an alliance of countries around the world with similar thinking on those issues that cultural goods and services are not like any other commodity. We shouldn't deal on that in trade agreements; we should deal on something else, and later establish the true normal linkage between that new international agreement on culture diversity and the trade agreement.

    So that's it.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): We will go to questions.

    Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you very much for your presentation. I had the opportunity to hear a lot about cultural diversity. I was in Pôrto Alegre, together with Ms. Beaudoin, and we worked very hard on this file. I was also at the FIPA last week, and in my workshop that dealt with the FTAA, I raised that concern. One can feel that this is not yet fully understood by Latin American countries, because they feel that Canada and Quebec, given that we have a relatively limited number of Francophones and with the American giant alongside... They do not have the same feeling of urgency that we do have. However, I believe that we are still making headway in this issue.

    There is still a question in my mind. If we want to completely withdraw the whole cultural field from the WTO, we must have a definition of culture somewhere in the agreement. We should be able to say--I do not know whether you have worked on this--that anything that is in the cultural domain, and we would have a comprehensive list, is not covered by that agreement. Otherwise, we would find ourselves somewhat in the same situation as in the case of NAFTA, where we do have a cultural exemption. But in the case of magazines, for example, the Americans have considered that it was not part of that exemption.

    So how can we make the link between the WTO and that international agreement?

    Mr. Robert Pilon: Mr. Paquette, this is an extremely complex issue, but in the cultural circles in Canada, I believe that a consensus has emerged recently to the effect that--and this is the coalition's point of view, as you can see by reading our mission statement--that these issues should not be discussed at international trade fora, to start with, but rather in a separate forum, in another forum.

    What would that forum be? Some propose the UNESCO, others say that we must create a specific forum, others yet are saying that the network of ministers responsible for culture that was initiated by Ms. Copps could be that forum. I am not an expert in the field of international trade treaties. The experts will tell you that there is such a thing as a stand alone mechanism, that a treaty can establish its own management structure.

    What is important for us, is that this issue is not first and foremost a trade issue; it is a cultural issue. That is the reason why we believe that it must be discussed in a forum where the whole approach will focuss first and foremost on culture, and not on trade.

    If we start, as we have seen in the past, discussing these issues in trade fora such as the WTO, immediately, from the start, the cultural milieu is left behind, dominated by what I could almost call a business culture, which is prevailing--that is normal--and which is focussed on trade, market liberalization, market access, with the usual rules such as national treatment, etc.

    Our strategy is rather to emulate what has been done in the field of the environment, that is to try and develop treaties outside of the international trade mechanisms, having in mind all issues that concern culture, just as the people who developed the environmental treaties had in mind not trade, but rather a concern for the environment.

    Of course, the results must then be anchored. Links and hierarchies must be established. This is not a simple proposition, as we have seen in the case of the treaties on the environment and WTO treaties. But I believe that what is important, first and foremost, is that the negotiations must be established in the field of culture.

    Meanwhile, what should be done? Meanwhile, there is a mechanism in place at the WTO. There is a structure of negotiation that is called bottom up, or positive list, which allows countries not to make any commitment, in order, in the end, not to compromise their ability to implement policies.

    For our part, what we are saying, is that countries should continue. This is what most of them have done in 1994, in any case, at the end of the Uruguay Round. They should continue not to make any trade liberalization commitment, to preserve their right to keep on establishing, maintaining and developing cultural policies, while at the same time, in an appropriate forum, establishing a new international treaty, dealing with cultural diversity and establishing the rules of the game. Such a treaty could state, for example, that member states are free to establish their own control policies, but without infringing freedom of expression or the intellectual property rights. It is not an absolute freedom; it is a freedom that can be exercised providing a number of principles are adhered to.

    Once these treaties are established, as has been the case in the area of the environment, we will have to establish the linkups with the international trade treaties, and the appropriate hierarchies. That, in a nutshell, is our point of view.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. Thank you, Mr. Paquette.

    Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Pilon, for this very clear and comprehensive presentation.

[English]

    I have just one question, and that's with respect to the FTAA negotiations. Within the context of NAFTA, culture is not completely carved out, as we know. There is a suggestion that somehow culture is not directly impacted, but there is still significant opportunity for reprisals within the NAFTA agreement. We know that, and certainly many of us fought the agreement, in part because of that potential for the erosion of our cultural sovereignty. Other parties supported the NAFTA and didn't feel it was that important.

[Translation]

    It is interesting, for example, to note that Mr. Parizeau may be reviewing chapter 11 of NAFTA and perhaps even now the issue of culture; I do not know.

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: He is quite in agreement with us on this issue.

[English]

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, but I'm wondering if you could perhaps just tell us where you see the negotiations at this point, with respect to culture and the likelihood there will be a complete carve-out, as opposed to some kind of provision in there that would leave open the possibility for reprisals and harassment, effectively, of culture, which is not a commodity and shouldn't be treated as a commodity. It is part of the soul of the country, and is not a commercial venture.

    What's happening on that front?

    Mr. Robert Pilon: The FTAA situation--again, I don't want to be too technical--is a bit different, because the structure of negotiation is different from the WTO services negotiation. It's not a bottom-up structure, it's a top-down structure. So you have to get a more formal exemption. It's not sufficient for a country to say it's not making a commitment there. It's more complicated. It has to negotiate there.

    The Canadian stated position on culture and the FTAA, which you can see on page 18 of our brochure, is as follows. Canada did something quite interesting there. They filed a draft preamble. I'm told that Canada is the only country that filed a draft preamble for the FTAA. It contains various principles, and one of them states that:

...(t)he 34 Governments of the countries participating in the FTAA (are) committed to (...) recognizing that countries must maintain the ability to preserve, develop and implement their cultural policies for the purpose of strengthening cultural diversity, given the essential role that cultural goods and services play in the identity and diversity of society and the lives of individuals...

    That's interesting. We'll see.

    There's a big deadline in the next few weeks. By May 15 countries have to agree on the procedure of negotiations, and negotiations will start for the FTAA. I don't know what happened. I'm told there was no discussion on that draft preamble until now. But that's quite an interesting principle.

    Moreover, if you look closely at the Canadian government website, you'll see that position was not very much publicized. But last July the Canadian government filed on the website of the foreign affairs department a page entitled “Culture and Trade in the FTAA---Canada's Position”. It says: “In negotiating the FTAA Agreement, Canada will seek a cultural exemption based on the model of the Canada-Chile and Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreements.” Canada has proposed language plus a preamble.

    This is interesting because, as you say, the problem with the exemption in the NAFTA agreement is that there is the exemption, which is fine, but there is also a reprisal clause, which is not fine. The only places where there is a true cultural exemption clause are in the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, and also, I think, the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement. This is a great model, which is being looked at as a model by many countries outside.

    Will it be feasible? We'll see. It's a matter of political will, alliance, and so on.

    Our view, as you can see at the top of page 18, is that our favoured model for the treatment of culture in the FTAA would be a full-fledged exemption based on the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement. But at the same time we say that another option could be to convince enough countries to change the model of negotiation from a top-down negotiation to a bottom-up negotiation so as to allow countries in the FTAA negotiations to make or not make a commitment on the model of the WTO services negotiation. That also could be a model.

    We have to keep in mind that this is a temporary solution until we get that new international agreement and until in the second phase we establish the linkage and hierarchy between that new international agreement and the trade agreement.

    I know my time is counted, but I want to leave the message that if Canada is serious about its leadership, and I think it is, to make this great contribution of having a new international instrument on cultural diversity.... We all know it will take three, four, or five years before enough countries are ready and there is a proper draft. A few drafts have been circulated in some circles. There will be 35 drafts before we get to the right one.

º  (1600)  

    When we're ready to sign this new agreement, we have to make sure that enough countries are ready to sign it. If too many countries are forced or are pushed into taking liberalization commitments in the cultural sector, be it in the WTO negotiations or in the FTAA negotiations, before the time comes to sign the new agreement on cultural diversity, when the time comes there will be no one to sign it, or there will be too few countries to sign it. So it's really important.

    There are two key points in the next year or so.

[Translation]

We must increase the speed, the work, the energy and the financial resources to develop that concept of a new instrument, to develop as well the selling of that concept to other countries. However, at the same time, Canada must be more proactive to build alliances with other countries and to persuade other countries not to make any commitment, not to yield to American pressures, which will be very strong. The closer we are from the deadline of March 2003, the more our American neighbours will exert extremely strong pressures on a great number of countries to bring them to sign trade liberalization commitments, and if a significant number of countries do sign liberalization commitments...

    If Canada is logical in its position, and I do believe that it can be and must be, we must not only publicise a new instrument, but we must also publicise our position within the FTAA discussions and our position at the WTO. These positions that I have just read are excellent. They only need to be publicised and we need to have other countries on our side.

    I believe that has to be accepted. It is a debate, a real debate. In Canada, we do not have the same notion of culture as the American administration in the area of international trade. That's it. It is quite understandable. For them, it is their most important sector of exports. It is more significant, in terms of resources, in term of external revenues, than the aeronautical sector. Personally, I am not at all suprised that they hold this position, but we must understand and we must defend our position.

    There is one thing that must be understood: many countries throughout the world share our position. The problem is to organize these countries, to build alliances. We are doing so at the level of trade associations. I believe that Ms. Copps has done some good work, including in cooperation with Quebec in many cases, on that issue in order to build some alliances at the level of governments as well. However, I do believe that we must now accelerate the pace. That's it.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much, Monsieur Pilon. You made your points, and your message is loud and clear.

    I hope you can catch your train.

    Mr. Robert Pilon: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Valeri.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    We'll now move to Mr. Keon, please.

    Mr. Jim Keon (President, Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association): Thank you, Mr. Valeri. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee.

    The focus of our brief today will be on the access to medicines in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which deals with intellectual property, in particular on patents in the field of medicines, and public health.

    I am the president of the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, the CDMA. CDMA represents the generic drug companies in Canada. Our value to the health care system both in Canada and internationally is that after patents expire we make equivalent medicines and sell them at competitive prices, thus saving the health care system--in the case of Canada--billions of dollars each year. We have a list of our member companies at the back of our brief.

    The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health: The subcommittee is conducting studies on the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, FTAA. In our view, these studies are timely because, after years of negotiation among WTO members, a new round of WTO negotiations was finally initiated at Doha in November of last year.

    It is unlikely that the new negotiating round would have been agreed to by the developing countries but for the commitments made by all member countries in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. The declaration is a commitment on the part of all WTO members to finding solutions to the pressing problem of access to medicines in developing countries.

    Paragraph 1 of the declaration expressly recognizes the gravity of the public health problems afflicting many developing and least developed countries. While this statement of recognition refers specifically to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, the statement recognizes the gravity of all public health problems and is not and should not be confined only to the problems expressly referred to in the declaration.

    Paragraph 4 of the declaration expressly recognizes that the TRIPS agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health, and affirms that the TRIPS agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, promote access to medicines for all.

    You may be aware that in the past year or two there has been tremendous international controversy over the role of patents and patent-holding firms in potentially denying life-saving medicines to developing countries.

    Paragraph 6 of the Doha declaration says that the WTO members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector can face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing for patents under the TRIPS agreement and instructs the TRIPS council to find a solution to the problems and refer it to the general council before the end of this year.

    The CDMA submits to the Canadian government that it should place a very high priority in giving the fullest possible effect to the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.

    First, the public health issues in developing countries identified by the declaration are real and urgent. Many people in these countries lack access to medicines that people in developed countries take for granted. As the declaration clearly acknowledges, international trading systems should facilitate rather than impede access to medicines in developing countries.

    Second, the developing countries would never have consented to a new round of negotiations without the declaration. Accordingly, giving real and meaningful effect to the declaration is a matter of good faith. The principle of good faith that is codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties applies to the negotiation as well to the implementation of treaties.

    Third, the WTO has been under increasing attack from non-governmental organizations and other public advocacy groups who maintain that the international trading system exists for the sole purpose of advancing the agendas of multinational corporations. Canada has a substantial stake in the continued strength and effectiveness of the international trading system. Canadian interests are not served through the credibility of the WTO being undermined. Giving full effect to the declaration will send a message that the international trading system serves the benefit of all people, not just the interests of multinational corporations.

º  (1610)  

    I'd like to touch on what we see as the essential elements for a solution to the issue of access to medicines in the TRIPS agreement. Useful suggestions to solve the access to medicines issue have been made by a number of parties already, including the European communities. The TRIPS Council has begun to address this issue coming from the Doha accord and it has had meetings already.

    The useful approaches so far put on the table recognize that the access to medicines issue must be addressed on a broader front than just within the confines of article 6 of the declaration and what we would see as the now confines of the compulsory licensing requirements of the existing TRIPS agreement, article 31.

    We submit that an approach that meaningfully fulfills the access to medicine commitments made in the declaration must contain the following elements. Any country with the capacity to produce medicines, and that of course includes Canada, should be entitled to authorize the production for export of those medicines under patent provided that the following conditions are satisfied.

    First, the importing country must be a developing country in which a grave public health problem exists.

    Secondly, the importing country must be incapable of producing the medicines required to address the grave health problem. By that we also mean that partial production capabilities such as the capability to press pills out of imported materials does not constitute a full capability to produce medicines.

    Thirdly, both the exporting country and the importing country must ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any export of the medicines imported back to the exporting country or to another country.

    We would recommend that a patent right holder in the country should only be able to block the authorization if they can demonstrate that any of the conditions above do not apply or that the right holder submits a plan that is ultimately accepted by the developing country according to which the right holder ensures that the developing country will be supplied with the quantities of medicine necessary to adequately address the grave public health problem at prices the developing country can afford.

    I'll touch on some elements that should not be included in a solution and then I'll conclude my comments.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Keon. In terms of the technicalities themselves, I think we'll--

    Mr. Jim Keon: I was going to skip over that.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Great.

    Mr. Jim Keon: As I said, these are some of the elements that we believe should not be included. The solution should not be restricted to the issue addressed in paragraph 6 of the declaration or confined to compulsory licensing provisions of the TRIPS agreement as it is now.

    The solution should be permanent, not temporary. It should not be by way of temporary suspensions of certain provisions or temporary moratoria on dispute resolution, as has been suggested.

    The solution should not be restricted to certain types of public health problems or to certain medicines. If there's a grave public health problem, the solution should apply to whatever medicines and/or other medical devices that may be necessary to address it.

    The solution should not apply only to certain developing countries; any developing country with a grave public health problem should qualify. The solution should not be burdened with complex procedural requirements for implementation. If the public health problems exist, the solution should permit these to be addressed expeditiously.

    The generic producers of medicines and exporting countries should not be restricted to non-profit companies. That has been suggested in some of the discussion so far. This requirement would effectively eliminate the very companies that have the production capability to meaningfully address medicine shortages.

    As indicated in the beginning of our submission, the declaration is a commitment on the part of the entire WTO membership to address serious health problems that exist in many developing countries. The declaration must be given broad effect and not just be paid lip service or given narrow legal interpretation. Good faith in treaty negotiations demands it. The future credibility of the WTO and the international trading system in which Canada has a high stake depends on it.

    I want to thank you for your attention. As I said, our brief focused on the Doha declaration. We think it's very urgent because those negotiations have already begun.

    Also, in our brief we do have a more general broad-based business case for promoting exports of generic products even under patent. I won't address those comments now, but I'd be happy to expand on them in the question period.

    Thank you.

º  (1615)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Keon.

    We'll now move to the Chamber of Commerce, please.

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow (Representative, International Affairs Committee, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few comments, which will take approximately five to seven minutes, on some of the less glamorous areas, but nevertheless important issues, in Canadian business.

    My name is Clifford Sosnow, as the sign says. I am a partner with the law firm of Lang Michener, but I am here before you in my capacity as representative of the international affairs committee of the chamber. I'm sure all of you know—but I'll say it anyway because I think it bears repeating—that it is Canada's largest and most representative business association. The chamber represents more than 170,000 businesses from every region and industry of Canada, as well as local chambers of commerce and boards of trade in hundreds of communities throughout the country.

    It is the chamber's position that the economic prosperity that Canada enjoys depends on a comprehensive and well-functioning multilateral commercial framework. In this regard for the chamber, the Doha Round and the Free Trade Area of the Americas are both important pillars of Canadian international economic policy. The chamber strongly supports the WTO, yet we see a role for specific bilateral or regional trade arrangements such as the NAFTA and the FTAA.

    It's the chamber's view that the agreement to launch a new round of negotiations is good news for all Canadians and for the global economy. Although there is some vague language contained in the Doha declaration that is making life difficult for the various delegations in Geneva, nevertheless it is a positive sign that countries all over the world recognize the benefits of a rules-based international trading system. In this regard, the chamber considers that Canada has rightly taken a leadership role in these negotiations.

    I want to talk a little bit about what the chamber considers its top priorities on the Canadian negotiating agenda. Again, these are in many respects meat and potatoes issues, but nevertheless important ones for the Canadian business community. I want to talk about tariffs, agriculture, rules on anti-dumping, services, and then investment and trade facilitation. I will try to be brief.

    First, it's the chamber's view that the reduction of remaining tariff barriers is one area of particular concern to Canadian business. Canadian exporters still face significant tariffs in some sectors and countries. There must be measurable progress towards the reduction and/or elimination of these tariffs. To give you an idea, Brazil imposes a 34% tariff on Canadian telecommunications equipment. Canadian canola exports face tariffs of anywhere from 23% to 28% in Japan. These are areas where Canada clearly has a competitive advantage, and those tariffs are preventing Canadian companies and businesses from taking advantage of what they excel in.

    The chamber also considers that the elimination of so-called “nuisance tariffs” of around 1% would be a useful starting point for Canada's negotiating position. These are of questionable utility, but they add significant costs to Canadian businesses.

    On agriculture, the chamber is very pleased that the WTO agreed to address trade-distorting export subsidies on agriculture and agrifood products. The chamber attaches a very high priority to achieving the substantial reduction and elimination of trade-distorting domestic support programs, the elimination of export subsidies, and significant improvements in market access for Canadian agriculture and agrifood products. Canadian producers and exporters have for too long been deprived of a level playing field, having been caught up in the subsidy wars between the U.S. and the European Union. We just can't afford that.

    The chamber also believes this is one of the key ways of advancing the Doha development agenda, because access to market products, agricultural products, has long been a major concern for developing countries. We think knocking down those subsidy barriers is a win-win situation for Canada and for developing countries.

º  (1620)  

    On anti-dumping and the rules associated with anti-dumping, the chamber considers that the agreement to look at trade remedies is welcome. It means that rules and processes such as those to which Canadian softwood lumber have been subjected in recent years will be discussed internationally for the first time.

    Canadian business is concerned that the use of anti-dumping and countervailing measures is a form of disguised protectionism. Canada's business community is in favour of tighter rules on dumping and subsidies because Canadian exports continue to be hit by abusive anti-dumping and countervailing claims of dubious merit. One only needs to look again at the softwood lumber issue to prove the point.

    We therefore look forward to a system of clearer, fairer, and more efficient rules.

    In addition, as you all know, China will become a very important and powerful player in the WTO. It is Canada's fourth largest export market, and having just been in China and reviewed their anti-dumping laws to ensure that they comply with the WTO, I can tell you that China is anxious to use its new-found dumping regime, and so disciplines on that, Mr. Chair, are more than welcome.

    The chamber believes that the negotiations on services are crucial to further strengthen the Canadian economy. It's no secret that Canadians are considered leaders in the services economy and the chamber considers that rules-based access is a win for the Canadian services sector. In this view, the chamber considers that the efficient movement of business people across borders is of particular importance for Canada because of the rapid growth of our services sector.

    There is discussion of a WTO-GATS--which is known as the General Agreement on Trade in Services--visa, that would allow professionals to move across borders with greater ease, and, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, the chamber considers that this is an idea worth developing.

    Finally, with respect to investment and trade facilitation, the chamber is disappointed to see that investment and trade facilitation were put off until 2003 at the earliest. Investment and trade facilitation are of particular importance to Canadian business. Investment is crucial for Canada both because Canada has been slipping in terms of FDI but also because Canada is an exporter of investments abroad. So the chamber is strongly in favour of strengthening disciplines to govern investment. We believe that such disciplines ensure certainty, confidence, and fair treatment for Canadian companies abroad. Unfortunately, this decision as to whether or not there will be negotiation on investment can only be taken on the basis of explicit consensus amongst all members and we encourage the Canadian government to work hard towards developing that consensus.

    As for trade facilitation, it's not a sexy area, but frankly it's very important to the Canadian business community. It involves moving, releasing, and clearing goods that are kept at ports. This is something that the Doha declaration suggests may be the subject of negotiations in 2003, again on the basis of explicit consensus. It is the chamber's considered view that Canada should work hard to achieve this consensus so that the negotiations may be launched.

    Again, in closing, we urge the government to remain engaged in the work of the WTO's investment and trade facilitation review and to press vigorously for their incorporation into the negotiating agenda following the fifth ministerial in 2003 in Mexico.

    I thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee. I look forward to your questions.

º  (1625)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: On page 3 of the French version of your document, you state that “The importing country must be a developing country where it is established, based on objective criteria, that there is a serious public health problem”.

    I had understood that in Doha, the formula that had been agreed upon was that of self-registration, under wich a country may declare that it considers the HIV/AIDS epidemics to have reached the point of being a public health problem and that, consequently, that country will trigger the exemption that is provided in the WTO agreement. For your part, you are proposing rather to develop a mechanism with objective criteria. I would have liked you to tell us a little more about these objectives criteria.

    I would have liked as well for you to elaborate somewhat on the elimination of export restrictions under the Patents Act. I would have liked to know what impact that could have on research itself. Does that impact on research made to find new original products? Because there is still an external market where that could be lost.

    As for the Chamber of Commerce, I believe that the presentation was extremely clear. Those are known objectives. Our big problem, presently, is that we do not feel, on the American side... There is a will to liberalize everything that is being done in other countries, but at home, they have extremely severe antidumping legislation. They also have political mechanisms that make it difficult to solve trade conflicts. We have an example of it right now in the softwood lumber conflict, where the USTR does not have the same position as the trade department.

    Still, are you relatively optimistic? On what would you base that optimism regarding the future of negotiations? If the Americans do not budge, I do not see why other countries would make a significant move, including on antidumping measures and various other issues as well.

    Yesterday, we heard witnesses on agriculture. The Senate and the Congress are presently studying a legislation called the Farm Bill which provides for even more significant support measures for American farmers. So why should we be opening our borders even more if, on the American side, our most significant partner, we do not feel any real willingness, pratically speaking, to proceed with this liberalization.

[English]

    Mr. Jim Keon: Thank you very much

    The idea that countries will use a system such as this continually, misuse it, is probably misplaced. Currently, most developing countries do not have patent protection for medicines. According to the way the provisional measures in the existing TRIPS agreement are to come into force, they are committed to do so by 2006.

    So the issue of access to medicines is not necessarily a patent issue from their perspective because patents don't exist in most of those countries. Their problem is a complete lack of the capacity to make the medicines. The Doha agreement recognizes that they need to be able to go beyond their own borders to try to find those medicines at more competitive prices. The criterion for this would be that a country has a national emergency and does not have the capacity to supply the medicines or other medical devices it needs on its own. This is not such a radical idea. For instance, we have provisions in Canadian patent law that allow the government to issue licences and to make use of patents. We're all familiar with the controversy over the drug ciprofloxacin before Christmas during the anthrax scare.

    These provisions exist in most countries’ patent laws. Doha recognizes that most developing countries simply don't have the capacity themselves to develop or provide those medicines. We have a generic industry in Canada that the Minister of Health could turn to. In most developing countries, and certainly in the smaller ones, they don't.

    As for the second point about exports of medicines under patents—we discussed the business case for promoting exports more at the end of our brief—we're suggesting here that if a product is still under patent in Canada but not in another country, either there never was a patent or the patent has expired, we would like to see the Canadian Patent Act allow for the generic company in Canada to make the product and export it to countries where the patent doesn't exist.

    I can give you an example. There's a heart medication drug called enalapril. Vasotec is the brand name. It continues to have a very long patent here in Canada until 2007. It went off patent in the United States in 2001.

    There were generic companies in Canada that had the technology and capacity to make this product, wanted to, applied to the commissioner of patents for a licence to make it in Canada and sell it in the United States, and were denied the licence because the Canadian Patent Act didn't have provisions for this. Ultimately, the product was licensed to firms in the United States and is now being made and sold there by generic firms in the U.S.

    So there was no impact whatsoever on the right holder in Canada because the product is not going to be sold here, and what has happened is that the Canadian generic company has been denied the ability to develop that technology, create those jobs, and bring in that foreign investment from exports. We consider this to be a very strong business case for opening up the patent act, in Canada in particular, where, if we're restricted to our own market, it's a rather small one.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: Thank you. I'll answer.

    You had asked me, Mr. Paquette, if I was optimistic with respect to the rules negotiations. I would say, first, make no mistake about it, the addition of the rules aspect to the Doha negotiations was a major victory for those seeking to put some kind of observation mechanism or microscope on U.S. dumping practices. The reality is that putting that in the WTO negotiations created a firestorm of controversy in Congress. It did not go over well. The administration has given the political spin that this will enable us to review other countries' dumping practices. But the reality is that this was a major concession the United States gave to the rest of the world, and Congress knew it, and the politicians know it.

    So am I optimistic? Yes. Is it going to be hard slogging? Yes. Are there going to be positive results coming out of this? We're hopeful that will be the case.

    With respect to the Farm Bill, it has not, as I understand it, yet been passed; it is still in conference. I understand there are several members who are concerned it will violate WTO rules in terms of the amount of subsidies being given. I would say to that, it's hypothetical right now, but assuming it is passed, it's all the more reason to have sharper and clearer rules to reduce subsidies--and the other way around.

    It's interesting as a side note that the United States was for rules to reduce subsidies; it was the Europeans who were quite opposed. I think ultimately, given that for Canada and for Quebec agriculture and agrifood is an extremely important aspect of our economies, and that we are continually hit by the war on subsidies between the EU and the U.S., it's very important for the Quebec and the Canadian agriculture and agrifood industries to ensure there are strong disciplines in that area. Will it be easy? Again, the answer is no. Is it important? The answer is yes.

º  (1635)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lofthouse.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse (Policy Analyst, Canadian Chamber of Commerce): Thank you.

    For those of you who don't know me, my name is Alexander Lofthouse. I'm on the international policy staff of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

    To add one quick point to complement that, it's important to remember two things about what the dynamic was pre-Doha and post-Doha--two things that are really the same thing. The Americans went in and said--and certainly the strong sense from Congress was, “We're not going to discuss anti-dumping. No, no, no!” And they did; it was on the table afterwards. The Europeans did exactly the same thing on agriculture. They said, “No, no, no! No way.” The French trade minister said, at one point, having a view to eliminating export subsidies in the Doha Round was “unacceptable to any European”--those were his words--but they moved.

    So just to back up this point, is it easy? No. But is it possible for them to move? Yes, it is.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    We had various people on the inclusion of labour rights and standards in trade agreements. We've had those calling for the inclusion of such a statement and we've had the opposite view. It's been interesting who we've had these views expressed from, actually, but I wonder whether the chamber has had a chance to look at that. I know you represent an awful lot of companies, but those companies represent an awful lot of workers, too. So what's your view on that?

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: Sorry, I'll learn one of these days I'm functioning on four brain cells, but as the day goes on it goes down to three.

    The chamber's view on this is that the WTO is first and foremost an international agreement about trade and commerce and frankly cannot be everything to everyone and respond to every single issue. There are international organizations that deal with issues like labour and do it very well, such as the International Labour Organization. The chamber considers it's important for the WTO to build linkages with the International Labour Organization on these issues, but the chamber generally is not in favour of including labour standards at this stage of the game, duplicating the work of the International Labour Organization in the WTO.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: On the issue of clarification and transparency, usually even the various opposition parties also recognize that Canada is attempting to be, and I think is perceived as being, on the forefront of pushing for greater clarification of certain trade clauses, such as chapter 11 of NAFTA, for greater transparency in the whole process, as seen by the release of the FTAA text and so on. I state for the record that this is a top priority of the current minister of trade. It's a top priority of this government.

    But to any of the witnesses—Mr. Keon, I haven't addressed a question to you yet, so I'd like to do that, but to the others as well—what suggestions do you have for the government to do even better in this regard? Do you have any thoughts to share with us?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Jim Keon: I'll address two points. First, on the question of the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement, coming back to the question of TRIPS, our position has been that those issues don't need to be dealt with in the FTAA. We have a WTO agreement, and we're quite satisfied with that.

    What we have found with NAFTA and the WTO both having substantive agreements on intellectual property is that Canada has been, in the field of drug patents, brought to the WTO twice. Really what happens is that the plaintiff country can forum shop, and that's what we had with the United States when they challenged Canada's patent term.

    The term that we had in Canada was completely consistent with the NAFTA agreement, which the U.S. had agreed to. So they didn't challenge us under NAFTA; they went to the World Trade Organization. So on intellectual property, we would not like to see it in the FTAA.

    On the question of transparency generally, I think the government is much better than it used to be. From our perspective, we make it our business to know what the government's positions are going to be on the issues that affect us, and get out there and get involved in the negotiations.

    We find it acceptable, and the officials are generally approachable. I would say that the government is doing a reasonable job in hearings like this in terms of getting the views and taking them into consideration.

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    On the transparency issue, I think it's no secret that the chamber's view is that generally we are supportive of greater transparency. I think transparency leads to openness, openness leads to understanding, and understanding leads to acceptance. We welcome Canadian leadership in this area to ensure greater focus of transparency, certainly in the WTO.

    In the context of FTAA negotiations and the NAFTA, again the principle of transparency is still important, but I think we have to understand that in the context of chapter 11 type disputes we are dealing with private commercial issues, and to the extent that we are dealing with highly sensitive commercial matters, those commercial matters have to be respected, and limits on confidentiality and transparency have to be understood and respected.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I think Mr. Lofthouse was going to respond. I have one more question, too, Mr. Chairman, if that's all right.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay, after Mr. Lofthouse.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: I have just a very brief point. The chamber was present at the Americas Business Forum meeting in Buenos Aires just before the last FTAA ministerial, which took place there exactly a year ago. That forum of business leaders called for the release of the FTAA negotiating text. So in terms of the transparency of the negotiating process, we are on side, and we have been on the record on that for quite some time.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a friendly challenge to the chamber and get a reaction.

    In London, Ontario, where I'm from, we have a very active and good chamber of commerce, as I'm sure my colleagues find in their communities. I've been there a number of times as their guest, with my other colleagues, and I spoke specifically on FTAA about a year ago, I guess. While there was a fairly good degree of knowledge about the issues, in some cases I would have expected a little more knowledge from business people--I understand they're busy making a profit and running companies. That leads me to my friendly challenge, because of course the chance to export would increase their profits and help the health of the economy.

    So the challenge is, how can the business community step up to the plate more aggressively and take on the foes of globalization, the ill-informed people, who--while I will give them that they're well intentioned, generally--are incredibly ill-informed and are doing a great disservice, in my view, to the country by spinning sheer nonsense in many cases--myths--that I and other MPs have to go and debunk? We're happy to do that, but we need your help. How are you going to do it more aggressively?

º  (1645)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): A friendly challenge to the Chamber of Commerce.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: That is the $64,000 question. If I could maybe borrow a lot of the words that you just used, that might certainly be a help.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: But you follow me, though, right? It's one thing for me, or Pierre, Tony, or other MPs to say it, but it's a very different thing for business people, and labour people, frankly, labour leaders--sometimes they're not our allies and they should be, and I'll challenge them when they're here--to take on the people who say globalization is this terrible, bad behemoth, just to line the pockets of the rich multinationals.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: Absolutely. That is part of the task of the chamber, and that's what we're doing. That's what we're out there doing every day. But when you show up here in a suit and tie, you're not out protesting in the streets, and it's a little harder to get media coverage. That's one thing.

    The second thing is that I can tell you it's also a lot harder to sell. It's a lot easier to bring bad news and have that sell, and get headlines with bad news--

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: You don't have to tell politicians that.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: —than it is to get headlines with good news and to debunk myths.

    So part of the problem—and I will accept part of this challenge—is that those of us who actually do think globalization is a good thing are on the defensive. So I think the challenge is not so much to get out and debunk the myths. I think the challenge is how to ensure that we're no longer on the defensive. I think the challenge is to get the positive news about globalization out there.

    There are a lot of organizations out there doing that. We're doing it here. There are groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce doing quite an impressive job. I think we need to stay out there and keep telling the story.

    That's the best answer I can give you for the moment, but that is an ongoing challenge that organizations such as ours face.

    Cliff, did you have anything to add?

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: No.

    The Acting Chair (M. Tony Valeri): There is one area that we haven't had a lot of discussion about and I'm hoping you perhaps, the chamber and Mr. Keon, might be able to assist the committee with it. It has to do with the competition policy itself.

    There is obviously a desire for competition policy, and we know it ensures that private anti-competitive practices do not serve to limit trade. It also appears that there seems to be within the WTO growing support coming from developing countries for competition rules. Can you give us any sense, essentially from an international trade perspective, of some of the key benefits of establishing the domestic competition regimes? Can you give us some sense as well of the minimum competition law standards that would be required to achieve an effective competition regime within, sort of, WTO member countries?

     Can you give us some direction there or some feedback? I think it would be very helpful to the committee.

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: Your question is an extremely good question, primarily because it responds to one of the most technically complex and politically complex areas of the WTO negotiations.

    So the answer I'm going to give you is not going to be an easy answer that points to a clear direction, because the reality is that the Canadian business community is still actively discussing this issue. I can tell you that amongst my colleagues in the anti-trust bar there is an enormous amount of discussion and debate as to whether even competition law standards should be subject to the WTO disciplines.

    I think part of the concern there is the feeling that competition law is its own body of jurisprudence that is highly legalistic, highly jurisdictional, highly judicial and that it's not an easy fit into a larger political-diplomatic, if you will, oversight by the WTO.

    Therefore, when you ask very astutely what would be some of the minimum standards, I think that to give you an idea how nascent the discussion is, I'd say that the question is, frankly, light-years ahead of where we are on that discussion in terms of minimum standards.

    Clearly, questions in respect of cartels may be something of importance, looking at the issue of monopolies may be something of importance, but the reality is that there is no consensus in the business community yet, let alone amongst the international bar, on that issue.

º  (1650)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. Mr. Keon. Or Mr. Lofthouse.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: To add an additional point, it's important to remember that competition is one of those four Singapore issues, just like investment and trade facilitation and...what was the fourth thing? I'm blank now. Anyway, it was one of those issues--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Procurement.

    Mr. Alexander Lofthouse: Yes, procurement. I always blank on that one. That was one of the four Singapore issues. It was pushed off to 2003 and only then will be taken up by explicit consensus, which is exactly what it says in the Doha agreement, which I think is an indicator of the fact that it is going to be tough to reach a consensus on.

    Mr. Jim Keon: I have very little to add.

    I think that on issues like competition policy, a trade association like ours looks to the broader-based associations like the chamber to provide some leadership. Generally speaking, of course, we are very supportive of strong anti-trust laws because, in our field and in others, the potential for abuse is there from patent rights and things like that. Whether or not there would be a benefit putting this into the WTO, I think, is a very long-term issue and we wouldn't expect any short-term solutions, so it's not an issue we've focused a lot on.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Keon.

    Mr. Sosnow.

    Mr. Clifford Sosnow: Mr. Chair, very briefly, competition policy is a contentious issue not only amongst Canadians but amongst the U.S. government, the Europeans, most of the leading opponents of competition discussion, and because of that we would urge the Canadian government to focus on areas like procurement, like investment, like trade facilitation, which we frankly think have a much greater chance of success in producing substantial and immediate results for Canadians and the Canadian business community.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I see no further questions. That was very helpful. Thank you very much for those comments on the competition policy.

    I'd like to thank the witnesses this afternoon. You've added very valuable information. Thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing you at future meetings.

    The meeting is adjourned.