[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
.1553 
[English]
The Chairman: This meeting will now continue in public.
Dr. Hill.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Chair, you mentioned that this committee could not proceed last spring because of a problem and that the problem subsequently righted itself. Could you be more specific for me as to what the problem was and what changed to remove that problem?
.1555
The Chairman: First of all, the amendments being proposed by the government must be cleared by cabinet. The discussions with regard to those amendments took place in cabinet and I have no direct knowledge of them. I'm simply advised now that whatever the problem was, whatever the concern or questions were, they were not able to get the answers to certain questions quickly enough for them to sign off on the amendments because of the lateness of the date in the session. Unfortunately, we couldn't schedule any further meetings while the House was in session. So it was simply a time situation.
Mr. Hill: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Rowsell, please.
Mr. L. Bruce Rowsell (Director, Bureau of Dangerous Drugs, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health): Thank you for having us back, Mr. Chairman. You have already introduced my colleagues here at the table.
I would just like to emphasize that as members go through the documents that have been placed before them, they will notice an awful lot of lines and revisions and linkages in those documents, and the substantial number of amendments being proposed. We feel these should address the concerns expressed by the members during the previous deliberations to the witnesses who have appeared before the committee. There have been other professional groups that have made presentations both to the committee and to departments. There are also linkages with other pieces of legislation. So I think that with these amendments, we are certainly coming forward with a much improved bill that will try to address the concerns expressed by the committee in its previous hearings.
I'd just like to recap briefly the bill itself, and remind the members that the real intent of this bill is to provide for the legitimate medical use of narcotic and controlled drugs. This is a piece of legislation that will allow physicians and other health care practitioners to treat patients in Canada. Many, mind you, do deal with things like severe pain, depression, anxiety and other illnesses, and it's simply some of the ill effects of these drugs and their abuse potential that really place them under the special legislation.
We are also attempting to satisfy the international obligations of the conventions, as we've stated before, and in particular with the precursors, designer drugs and a group of drugs called benzodiazepines that were included in the 1988 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
It also aims to consolidate the current Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act into a single piece of legislation, thus making administration much easier for health professionals, both federal and provincial departments of health, and the enforcement agencies. Hopefully this will bring much more uniformity to the process. As the committee is aware, currently some of the definitions in these two pieces of legislation are not consistent and application is difficult.
Finally, it aims to streamline procedures, particularly how the courts of Canada will proceed in dealing with the infractions under this new piece of legislation.
There were a number of issues raised by the committee. If I can just run through these, each of us will then go through and address for the committee the actions being proposed and how we're dealing with them.
The first one was the concern that this bill did not adequately deal with the rehabilitation and treatment of people who have become addicted; that rather than being penal and dealing with incarceration, we wanted to get more rehabilitation and treatment in the process.
.1600
There were concerns about definitions expressed by the practitioners.
There were concerns raised by many of the AIDS groups about needle exchange programs and whether this bill will injure or prevent some of those programs from moving forward.
There is also a concern about the confidentiality of medical records and the access to those records by inspectors.
The scheduling of drugs was raised by a number of groups, particularly dealing with the criteria and how they would be handled in the future.
There is concern about criminal records for the simple possession of cannabis. I think this was an issue that had widespread input from a lot of interested parties.
There was concern about fortified drug houses and the ability of enforcement agencies to deal with them. I guess some of the recent events, particularly in Montreal and in Toronto, highlight concerns arising out of that issue.
There was also the matter regarding the hybrid trafficking offence in cannabis materials.
There was the interpretation in paragraph 3(1)(a), which deals with the notion of the intention of a substance to produce a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect.
Finally, there was the concern about clause 59, which deals with the administration procedures for adjudication process within the department for enforcement activities.
What I would like to do is ask Mr. Normand to start off the process and describe the first few sections.
Gérard.
Mr. Gérard Normand (Counsel, National Security Group, Department of Justice): Thank you. Bonjour. Good day.
I will address some of the concerns raised and explained in the narrative by Bruce Rowsell. I will also highlight some of the main changes being proposed to Bill C-7.
Dealing first with the definition of ``practitioner'', this concern was first raised by the Canadian Medical Association some time ago. They were essentially requesting that the definition be laid out in the body of the statute, so there will be a proposal to include the definition of ``practitioner'' in the statute, as was requested. The definition, as you will see, will also allow for any additional person or member or group to be added by regulation. If, down the road and a few years from now, we should feel there is a need to add to the definition, we won't have to amend the statute to do so.
Along those lines, there were some concerns about the different activities in which a practitioner is involved and about what constitutes trafficking. We are proposing an amendment to the definition of ``trafficking'' to make precise exactly what activities would be covered in regard to practitioners. As you will see, we are specifying that a practitioner selling an authorization to obtain a substance, unless authorized by the regulations, would be undertaking trafficking. We are providing for the selling of prescriptions by a practitioner, which would be covered as trafficking.
The other aspect of the trafficking definition that could have applied to the practitioners has been excluded by a change in the definition of ``provide''. Essentially, what you will find applying now under ``trafficking'' as far as prescriptions are concerned - which was the concern expressed by some members and by some witnesses - will be restricted to the activity of selling a prescription, which will be illegal unless authorized by the regulations.
Bruce Rowsell also mentioned - and I'm still in clause 2 of Bill C-7 - the fortified drug houses.
.1605
The Chairman: I wonder about questions from the members. If we're moving on to a new point...I don't think we should debate or discuss any points of clarification in detail. But if there are any clarification matters, possibly we could deal with them as they arise.
Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): You mentioned, in terms of your definition of practitioner, that you can add others by statute. By the same token, can you take some away? I'm increasingly concerned about what can be done without debate before committee or before Parliament.
Mr. Normand: The definition is set out in such a way that we have the same definition as the one that currently exists. We cover the profession of medicine, industry, and veterinary medicine. Those are currently the ones covered, so they won't be in the statute. If some were to be added, it would be through regulation. You would find those additional definitions in the regulations and not in the statute.
You could not delete the ones that are already in the act unless you amended the act.
Mr. Easter: Thank you.
The Chairman: A question from the research staff is with regard to the necessity of defining ``provide'', because of the offence ``to traffic'', and the terminology is outlined, unless you're defining a term within a definition. Is that what we're trying to do?
Mr. Normand: If you look at the proposal in the definition of trafficking, the word ``provide'' has been taken out. But the word ``provide'' appears in clause 54 for regulation-making authority purposes, and that's why we are keeping it there.
The Chairman: Thank you. You can proceed to fortified drug houses, which I believe you were on.
Mr. Normand: Yes. Some members expressed some concerns about this. Mr. Rowsell also said a few words about fortified drug houses and whether they should be covered or not. In the current definition of offence-related property, on page 2 of Bill C-7, we excluded real property. There will be a proposal to cover real property that will be built or significantly modified for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a designated substance offence. This is in answer to the fortified drug houses issue. Those would now be covered if the amendment is passed.
Mr. Easter: Thank you.
Mr. Normand: Consequently, just for your information, some paragraphs will be added in subclause 14(1) in order to cover those. If we're dealing with real property, you cannot seize it but you can restrain it. In 14(1) we are going to provide for restraint orders of those offence-related properties that are real estate. That's why the subclause has been added, to allow prosecutors in the court the ability to restrain property that would be fortified drug houses, because you cannot seize real estate.
In clause 2, I already mentioned that there would be some changes to the definition of trafficking, and I've highlighted those.
The next issue is subclause 3(1), which deals with the effect similarity of substances that are not covered in the schedules. Concern was raised by many groups, and, over the course of the summer, especially concerning herbal products. The proposal before you, because of those concerns, is to delete paragraphs 3(1)(a) and (b) so that clause 3 would start with the current subclause 3(2). Essentially, the effect similarity provision would disappear. We feel this would definitely erase the concern regarding herbal products.
.1610
Consequently, the current clause 4, which was there to allow for the exemption of substances that could have fallen into subclause 3(1)...subclause 3(1) being interpretive, clause 4 was there essentially to make sure some products that could fall under subclause 3(1) would not be covered by the bill. Essentially we had nicotine and alcohol.
So there would be a proposal to vote down clause 4. That's the way we were told by the drafters to do it. There's no specific motion on that, but there could be a motion, since we don't need clause 4 any more, to have it voted down.
The Chairman: In clause-by-clause.
Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. Paul St. Denis (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The questions that arose about some of the offences, particularly the possession offence, had to do with the fingerprinting aspect in personal consumption of cannabis. After much debate and many attempts at finding a solution, what is being proposed is a multi-level possession offence.
For the personal consumption of cannabis we're proposing a summary conviction offence punishable by six months or $1,000 where there is up to 30 grams of marijuana leaf material or 1 gram of resin material. So in cases where this offence has been committed, it would be a summary conviction offence. No fingerprinting would be available, which means also there would be no traceability of criminal records. That is, they could not be accessed through the RCMP CPIC process.
However, for possession of 30-plus grams of marijuana or for more than 1 gram of resin or any other cannabis products, we're proposing a hybrid offence. On indictment it would be punishable by five years less a day, and on summary conviction it would be punishable by $1,000 or six months for a first offence, or up to $2,000 or one year for subsequent offences. Under this offence it will be possible to fingerprint the accused.
By putting it in the absolute jurisdiction of the provincial court, however, we're resolving a problem that has been pointed to a number of times by law-enforcement agents and by prosecutors. In these cases there would be no preliminary inquiries and there would be no access to jury trials. So we deal with the essential problem of court backlog.
For any other schedule I offence there is no change. Again, it would be a hybrid offence, with, on indictment, possible imprisonment for up to seven years. So for heroin and cocaine and the like, that remains as it is in the law.
I should point out that for the possession of more than 30 grams or more than 1 gram of marijuana and resin respectively, that is a reduction in the penalty we now have. At present it's seven years for all cannabis products. With this second tier of the cannabis possession offence we would have five years less a day, so it is a reduction in the maximum penalty.
.1615
In this way we've attempted to address the concerns of the members of the committee as well as a number of the witnesses who wished that the issue of personal consumption of small amounts of marijuana and other cannabis products be treated in a more lenient fashion.
With respect to the trafficking issue, presently it is a hybrid offence in the bill. We're proposing that the offence become an indictable offence, and rather than having it be punishable by up to two years in prison on summary conviction and fourteen years on indictment, that it be punishable exclusively by up to five years less a day with respect to any amounts of cannabis leaf material and cannabis resin weighing three kilograms or less.
Again, this would resolve the problem of court backlog, and, in the area of trafficking in small amounts, that is a considerable problem. We would have no preliminary inquiries and no access to jury trials. Therefore in our large urban centres we would be reducing the court backlogs that now exist because of the trafficking cases.
As a side issue, and not one that was necessarily raised by you, Mr. Chairman, when we were going over some of the key substantive problems, there were concerns raised about some of the penalties. What we have done here is attempt to reduce the general penalties to the same levels as those found in the present drug statutes.
The best example and the example that was probably cited most often is the increase in the fine for possession, which had gone up to $2,000 for a first offence. That will go back to its original $1,000. In other instances, where applicable, we've reduced the sentences to realign them with what is now found in the present legislation.
At one point you, Mr. Chairman, did raise the question of the amount of cannabis material in what is presently but will no longer be the hybrid trafficking offence. It applies to three kilograms or less of leaf material and resin. I think you queried the reasoning behind the three kilograms.
As a result of a number of factors, the initial bill, which was tabled under the previous government, had ten kilograms. As a result of inquiries taken up with our prosecutors across the country, we concluded that ten kilograms reflected the maximum quantity whereby you would still be well within the kinds of punishments contemplated by the hybrid trafficking offence, which were two years and fourteen years.
That was problematic, for a numbers of reasons, to members of the committee who examined that bill at that time. They proposed that it be reduced to one kilogram. Subsequent to discussions with members of that committee, it was agreed that three kilograms would be a more practical amount, because in order to deal with the problem of court backlog with respect to trafficking in amounts of cannabis, one kilogram was impractically low. So the members of that committee agreed to raise it to three kilograms, but before they could report that to the House, Parliament prorogued.
.1620
So when this bill was reintroduced, we simply added the three kilograms as the amount that reflected the evolution of our thinking in that area. That is why we ended up with three kilograms at this time, sir.
I believe that concludes my portion of the presentation, unless you have any questions, of course.
Mr. Rowsell: Let me wrap up with the final issues.
We talked about the concerns of rehabilitation and treatment. We recognize this Parliament has now approved Bill C-41. While it has not been promulgated, that bill will link with this legislation and provide direction to the courts in dealing with sentencing and will certainly encourage the courts to consider rehabilitation and treatment.
In addition to that, at the heading of the lead-in to clause 11 there is a statement of purpose of sentencing, which again will try to bring forward to the courts a signal that they should consider rehabilitation and treatment.
With respect to the concern about needle exchange programs, we feel this legislation is almost identical in these areas to the current legislation and there is no impediment to the needle exchange programs. But there has also been an initiative by the department. We will be undertaking to provide better information to groups that are involved in the needle exchange programs in order to allay their concerns, and to provide more education to professionals and chiefs of police in order to inform them about their misperceptions of this issue.
There is also a provision in clause 55 that if it did become a serious matter, the minister could exempt certain groups or persons under that clause for this purpose. In that respect clause 55 does provide an improvement over the current legislation.
With respect to the confidentiality of medical records and their access by inspectors, there is a proposed modification whereby inspectors will not have access to personal medical history documents. In other words, they would have access to administrative documents about the purchasing of prescriptions, etc., but would not have access to any personal medical history of a patient. That would be expressly excluded from their access.
Finally, on the scheduling of drugs, certainly the World Health Organization Committee on Drug Dependence has established criteria to guide them in putting these drugs into the various schedules. We think they lack specificity. They're not very clear. Certainly, as had been proposed earlier, we think Health Canada should take on the role of setting up an expert committee to set specific criteria for these schedules.
I would also like to point out that we have created a sub-schedule to schedule I whereby cannabis is treated separately. That facilitates our ability to deal with cannabis, as the committee had expressed its desire to do. It is a separate break-out for cannabis.
.1625
I'm also reminded that clause 59, which put in the act the procedures for adjudication of health care personnel, will be removed and placed in the regulations. Under the current legislation it is part of the regulations, and it is felt that is a better approach for it, rather than being in the act itself. That's with the agreement of the professional organizations.
At the present time, neither the Narcotic Control Act nor the Food and Drugs Act has a procedure for adjudication. It's a step that is really needed for the processing when a physician is notified he can no longer prescribe. There's a need for this procedure to be in the regulations to the new legislation.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. It benefits the members to get a sense of the scope. You'll find that the binder is quite extensive, but a vast majority of these pages are as a result of a ripple effect; the conforming of changes. For instance, the scheduling of cannabis in a separate section 1(1) will have the ripple effect of about another ten amendments to simply incorporate or reflect that fundamental change. They are not as onerous as they may look.
Since you also raised the question of an overview of the intent of the legislation and the things it would do, I wonder if you would also comment in terms of the importance of moving this legislation forward. There are indeed other reasons that have prompted that, and you might want to advise the committee on that as well.
Mr. Rowsell: Many of you may be aware that while this committee was in recess, two delegations from two United Nations organizations came to meet with us, members of Parliament, and other jurisdictions to express their concern that the use of Canada as a conduit for international drug issues has become a very serious problem, particularly the export of precursor substances that are going through Canada mainly into the United States, but into Europe as well - being used for clandestine laboratories.
There are also large amounts of benzodiazepine substances being exported. They are being manufactured in Canada and exported to developing countries in large quantities. We had a particular case involving east European countries as well.
The quantities being exported are well beyond the needs of those particular countries. They're simply being diverted into the illicit marketplace in other countries. Again, a lot of it is coming back into the United States. A strong representation from the United States as well as the UN commission in Vienna asked that Canada proceed to fully implement the requirements of the 1988 convention. I guess we are not active enough in helping to control the international marketplace and the diversion of these substances.
The Chairman: The officials have outlined, according to my checklist, all of the areas we had identified as a committee, based on our own concerns or concerns raised by witnesses or other sources. I believe they have indicated that each of these areas, in one way or another, is going to be addressed through amendments or intent.
.1630
Two specific items were carried forward, and I think committee members indicated that, in addition to addressing them, our recommendations would be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health.
These recommendations include, first, that the minister consider a review of our drug policy and drug strategy; second, that we have a concern and encourage Health Canada to quickly deal with the scheduling procedures and mechanics, because they are not in place right now to the extent that we can deal effectively with those newer substances that will be coming on stream. If we adopt the deeming provision, subclause 3(1), it will be important to have an efficient mechanism to deal with substances as they come up. I think we should reaffirm our intent to make those recommendations to the minister.
At this point I would ask colleagues if they have any other questions of clarification on the general matters. It would then be our intent to ask members to examine the amendments in consideration of the presentation that has been made and consider any additional matters they had previously considered for potential amendment.
Your amendments should be ready for the consideration of this committee as soon as possible. Ideally, amendments should be in hand and circulated in advance. I suspect the substantive points that may be raised will not be very many, and we'll try to be considerate to the members and not insist that there is some sort of a deadline.
In going through the clause-by-clause, if you are unable to formulate or research and formulate any further amendments, changes or subamendments to something that may be coming forward from the amendments being proposed by the government, I would certainly entertain any motion by members to stand any clause, as we go through the clause-by-clause process, until you're absolutely ready to bring forward any amendments. So if you have some caution or some concern that you don't feel you can adequately address by the next meeting and as we go through the clause-by-clause, then I certainly think it would be appropriate for us to simply stand the applicable clause or clauses until the end of the process.
Are there questions?
Mr. Hill: This is a question from a novice parliamentarian. The bill has been around for a long time. It's been through quite a number of groups and MPs. Is it normal to have this many amendments, changes and alterations to a bill?
Ms McLaughlin (Yukon): We never get it right the first time, Grant. We can't get it right the first time.
Mr. Rowsell: Yes, I think it is normal when it's this nature of legislation and when there's a real attempt to come with modifications to the bill itself. I think there has been a lot of soul-searching in how to approach this piece of legislation, so I think these amendments that are coming forward at this stage are really trying to address the concerns expressed by the members during the previous discussions.
Ms Fry (Vancouver Centre): I would also include many of the groups who came and presented to us and had serious concerns. I think this is a move to try to address not only the concerns of this committee, but the concerns of the groups who have presented to us representing bona fide issues, such as physicians who were concerned about some of these issues, law enforcement people, people who are involved in dealing with drug rehabilitation themselves.
.1635
So I think it's great that we have lots of amendments. It shows we are responding as a committee to what people have said. We've listened, which is a change.
The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I understand that at this time we have received the explanations that support the amendments we have in front of us, but as I remember it, the scheduling of our business was the main purpose of this meeting, and as a committee we have not addressed that issue. When will we go ahead and enjoy the pleasure of clause-by-clause?
The Chairman: Commencing Thursday.
Mr. de Savoye: Then let's talk about this schedule, because this has not, as far as I can understand it, been approved by this committee yet.
I understand you propose Thursday. I am on the justice committee. I have discovered an amazing thing on the justice committee, especially with the gun control bill, Bill C-41, and so on. I have double work to do. First I must read the clause in French. Then I must read it in English and make sure it is the same. It is not always the same. So I have double duty compared with you people. I have a wonderful assistant who is very capable but still is a human being and has only 24 hours in a day - and sometimes he takes a few to sleep.
I'm very pleased by what I've heard. I thank you gentlemen for having addressed, as far as I can see, the issues we were really concerned with. However, I want to go through my checklist and make sure what is written here in the clauses really reflects the intent you nicely put forward.
It might take a little longer than Thursday. If you give me a week from now, I will be up to date with this, and if there are any amendments, I will propose things that really will enrich our debate and we won't lose any time. Otherwise I might just not feel comfortable and I might have some of those clauses stood, maybe for nothing; just because I'm not up to speed.
I'm not trying to impede.... We're not a few days from an important result here. We're not bound to a few days. Maybe we'll just go like a snap of the fingers. Maybe in the end we will deliver on the same due date.
The Chairman: I wonder if I can offer you a concession.
Mr. de Savoye: I'm listening.
The Chairman: It is a long bill, and quite a number of aspects of the bill are not contentious and are not being proposed to be amended and are basically boiler-plate. We could then proceed with clause-by-clause on virtually all those items to which we do not...to have all the non-contentious matter dealt with, which would then give you until next Tuesday for your amendments.
Mr. de Savoye: But again, you know some clauses have some impact on some other clauses. I've learned a lot on the justice committee, and especially with gun control. Even if it's not clear in our minds, as we go along we will meet some difficulties. Let's do it correctly the first time.
The Chairman: I'm advised that if we proceeded on the basis I've outlined, where we would deal with those non-contentious areas first, and it was subsequently discovered that as a result of a new amendment that was raised there was some impact on a clause that had already been dealt with, the committee could reopen that clause. So it would not frustrate the intent and the need to make any further changes.
.1640
I think I would like to see this committee continue its work to get the bill processed. We'll do the work that we have that's available to be done, and we'll accept and provide as much latitude as we can to members with regard to other amendments.
However, the issues that were raised by the committee for the consideration of the officials are not very many. In fact, the very substantive items, as you have said yourself, have been addressed quite definitively. I don't see that we're going to have a great deal of problems with regard to those specific amendments.
The only areas in which I really believe we're going to have some potential difficulty would be with regard to any new amendments the committee has not yet addressed.
So I'm quite anxious to keep the committee doing its work. We have had this bill far too long. It is too important, not only with regard to us satisfying our obligations under the treaties, but also, I understand, even to the RCMP, who are very anxious for some of the particular provisions in here to be dealt with quickly. I'm simply concerned that we're going to lose an opportunity.
The meeting was called, I believe, for next Thursday at 3:30 p.m. I think I'd like to commence with the clause-by-clause. Or there may be specific amendments that members would like to put on the table, similar to what the officials have done today, to explain the genesis or the rationale and to have some discussion among ourselves. Then we would proceed to the clause-by-clause.
If need be, we will do it in a fashion that respects the need for additional time for amendment development. As a result of reviewing this, I think you'll find that, although there may be fifty pages or so, there are probably only about a half-dozen pages that are really the root amendments.
In that regard, I think it does allow the committee members an opportunity to do their work without frustrating the good efforts of any member with regard to any amendment area.
Ms Fry: I just wanted to say that I find it hard to believe that Mr. de Savoye would not be able to get up to scratch as quickly as possible. I have the greatest respect for his intellectual abilities.
Say we start on the clause-by-clause. Obviously, Mr. de Savoye would have some amendments he may want to suggest on his own that have already been done. Probably we will not be able to get through the whole clause-by-clause next Thursday, if we're going to discuss it. So maybe you could deal with it by saying that you think we might get through the first three parts. Then you can sort of do the first three parts and leave the other parts, so when we get to it, you can get there. That still allows you to stagger your own time and discussion.
Mr. de Savoye: How nice of you.
Mr. Chair, just to better appreciate the urgency of going forward with all this work, could you inform this committee as to when Bill C-7 will go back to the House and then through the Senate? We are not at the end of the road for this bill, however anxious the RCMP is to have this new tool in its hand. What's your prognosis?
The Chairman: I consider that with the length of the bill and the process that has to be gone through to properly discharge the bill, we will not be able to complete it at the next meeting. It will take two meetings of this committee if we continue to work and are productive.
It's a possibility to complete, say, half the bill on Thursday and then the other half on the following Tuesday. The Standing Committee on Health will be meeting on the following Thursday. That would give us an opportunity to report the bill to that committee.
.1645
As you know, the committee, informing the subcommittee, said this bill would come back to the standing committee without debate. It simply would be accepted and reported to the House. It will then in fact be done probably on Friday.
It is then in the hands of the House leadership to deal with the Order Paper. I'm led to believe it's important enough - As you mentioned, the fact that the process was in the House - The report stage and third reading do take a bit of time to go through. It then has to go to the Senate.
These things do take time, and the window is not very wide open. There's some time here to do it, but I don't want to risk any delay without any very good reason. This bill is far too important to risk losing it simply on a time clock.
Mr. de Savoye: Could I add a suggestion for the research staff? You mentioned yourself that we may want to forward a few recommendations to the House. Maybe a draft version of these could be ready for next Thursday so we could also have a look at them and at the same time maybe indicate the improvements we wish to have on them. So by next Thursday, one week from now, we will really be ready to present something to the health committee.
The Chairman: There being no further intervention from members, we're adjourned till Thursday.