[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 23, 1996
.1308 
[English]
The Chair: I'll call the meeting to order.
We have a couple of concerns. We have had a draw, and we've had six motions and eight bills drawn. Because of the schedule of legislation - and I guess it was held up partially for the week we had off - there is room for three motions. There is no room for any bills.
It would be very easy for us, considering the attacks we've been under lately, to tell everybody with bills, too bad, none of them are votable. But I'm sure that won't go over too big with them, plus I've looked through the package of bills and there are some very good ones in there.
There is a rule that you have to call a meeting to discuss these within ten days of their being drawn, so we're within that period and that's why the first part of this meeting is to deal with this. I don't know what the rules are and that's why we have all these experts who will tell us.
If we defer it today, does that still keep them all alive? We have to have a report back to the procedure and House affairs committee by November 7 for them to get in the next batch.
The next question I want to ask is whether we can just select motions and get those done and whether there is a way of retaining these bills so they don't all become non-votable, because that just seems like a very cavalier way of doing this because of what's happened on the timing.
What are the answers?
.1310
The Clerk of the Committee: On the thing about motions, you can start with them if you wish and invite only members for the motions.
The Chair: Yes.
The Clerk: The thing about bills never happened.
The Chair: It never happened before and you're new, so we did that to you on purpose.
The Clerk: You can wait, but the thing is, this one will disappear November 7, so you won't have any chance, and this one will disappear November 8. Maybe we'll have some openings at the end, but the only ones we would be able to consider are the ones left in the pot.
The Chair: I think we'll be accused of being very cavalier.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Would it not be possible, if one is usurped by virtue of us being unable to consider it, simply to drop it at the bottom of the list and postpone the next draw? You can't do that?
The Chair: No.
Mr. Frazer: Why not? You said it has never happened before. Why can't we do it?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): In accordance with the opinion provided by Mrs. Diotte, who ought to know the rules of procedure, I believe we should make a report to the Standing Committee to say that we do not want to consider them at this moment and ask it to make a report to the House and get an order from the House allowing us to consider them next time along with the others. I can assure you of the unanimous consent of my party that everything be considered at the time of the next draw.
The Clerk: But these matters will have disappeared, the next draw may be held November 19th by virtue of the week off. We could hear many witnesses on that date. We could study these matters seven or eight days later. We would then be at the 26th of November. All the matters for discussion between the 7th and 26th of November will have been debated in the House and will have disappeared, as provided in the present rules.
Mr. Langlois: What do you suggest to us in the medium term, if there is a medium term? You don't have an answer?
The Clerk: Personally, I don't know.
Mr. Thomas Hall (Committee Researcher): We could suspend the debate, but we would create other problems by putting all these bills on hold. On certain days, there would be nothing in the House.
[English]
Mr. Langlois: What are the names or the numbers of the bills actually under consideration by us?
[Translation]
The Clerk: The numbers of the bills which are shown on the list; I could read these to you. Are you referring to the next time, to those that should be considered?
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
The Clerk: The bills are C-284 by Mr. Breitkreuz, C-223 by Mr. Allmand, C-216 byMr. Bellemare, C-235 by Mr. Assadourian. C-252 by Mr. Martin, C-321 by Mrs. Guarnieri and C-333 by Mr. White.
Mr. Langlois: All the C bills appear starting from the 7th of November?
The Clerk: Starting from those where there are asterisks beside the names. The bills of these members have not been chosen in any way.
Mr. Langlois: They are still in the Barrel.
The Clerk: No, they came out of the October 8th draw. Normally, your group meets to study these bills and chooses those that could come to a vote. Those that you do not select will not come to a vote, but they will nevertheless be granted an hour of debate in the House. That debate will start on November 7th.
Mr. Langlois: I understand. I listened to Mr. Frazer, who is normally a very wise man.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Well, I just suggested that since this is a situation that hasn't arisen before and these people have done nothing wrong, they've been drawn and should be considered.
Can we not say that their bills are deferred until there is room for them to come onto the calendar as votable items? Or perhaps, Carolyn, should we consider them, and those that are non-votable could be moved up to the head of the list, thereby allowing the others to move back down and be considered later on?
The Chair: That's a possibility. The other thing I was thinking of is that they would get their first hour of debate and not be told whether they're going to be votable until they go into their second hour. I don't even know if that's possible.
Mr. Frazer: The only problem is that normally if an individual is not votable, he or she would have the option to ask unanimous consent for referral to make it votable at that time, and of course that wouldn't be appropriate if they were later considered to be votable. So it does take one option away from people who are presenting a private member's bill.
.1315
The Chair: The first problem occurs on November 18. That's Mr. Breitkreuz. That's the first bill, November 18. I'm not following the logic of this. Could openings occur between now and the 18th?
The Clerk: Only if debate collapsed, because all those are only starting, so like Mr. Bonin yesterday, he's back at the bottom here, December 6. And they're all at the same stage, a very early stage, except this one at one hour, but that's not enough. By the time he goes up and he'll be down again. That's December, February, March, I don't know - unless the debate collapsed.
The Chair: All right. The next question would be then, as Mr. Frazer said, if we could hold a meeting this week, choose one or two votable bills out of these eight that we've got sitting here and then see if people can arrange switches in times themselves, putting them closer to the bottom of the list for the votable ones. Would that be a possibility?
The easy thing for us to do would be to say sorry, guys, you all get one hour, and then none of them are votable and it's your luck that you were drawn the wrong week. But I don't want to do that.
Mr. Frazer: I'm in trouble here because one of my bills is here and I feel a conflict of interest.
The Chair: No, don't. Everybody who sits on this committee occasionally has a bill here. I never would, because I don't do them, but...
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The only difficulty with that would be it would require cooperation of all the people selected, and if you are being asked to move your bill forward so that somebody else's bill will be declared votable, you may be less than willing to compromise.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): We really have no other choice than to try it.
Mr. Robertson: That's right.
The Clerk: But if you choose some in reserve, as we call those, only those one or two would be tempted to move. The others would have no desire to do so, do you understand, because they'd now be chosen.
The Chair: Could we pick an afternoon this week and have presentations of motions? I was hoping Monday. You couldn't fly in on Sunday, could you?
Mr. Frazer: No, we've only got tomorrow.
The Chair: Members won't be here.
Mr. Loney: The House doesn't sit Friday.
The Chair: There is going to be one person on this list - John Loney and I both know who it is - who is going to suggest this is an entire conspiracy, and we're sitting here trying to figure out how to do it.
Jamie, come on, you're smart.
Mr. Robertson: There is Tuesday morning; the procedure and House affairs committee will not be meeting next Tuesday. You could start at 9 a.m., listen to the motions, and then listen to the members with bills.
The Chair: And then ask their cooperation and see if we can get them to do some time-switching.
Mr. Robertson: Explain the situation to them.
Mr. Frazer: You're talking Tuesday, October 29, is that right?
Mr. Langlois: I thought we are going to have a meeting on Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. Robertson: Tuesday afternoon with Mr. Gray. In the morning there's nothing scheduled.
Mr. Langlois: I'll be available.
Mr. Robertson: The reason that this has arisen was I think that certain of the votable bills got through more quickly than they were planned to. For instance, Mr. Milliken's bill, the one that was considered yesterday, got through the House in one hour, so that meant it opened up another space for a votable bill, and that's why you have these five bills all at the first hour, just after the first hour of debate in the House. It's just the way it has happened.
The Chair: Okay. What we'll do is schedule Tuesday morning and we'll see how many people we can get to present. We'll go through the motions. We'll go through the bills. We'll just bull our way through the whole thing, see if we can get as many people in on Tuesday as possible. Those who can't appear Tuesday - we'll apologize and tell them that because of circumstances that's the day that we're hearing everybody and we'll just book them all for Tuesday morning.
We will do what's suggested, pick one or two bills that we consider to be votable, and then we will take all our negotiation skills to try to get people to do switches so that those votable bills end up at the bottom of the list.
Mr. Frazer: Will that meeting be here? Is this room available? You don't know, okay.
Mr. Robertson: The Bloc meets in here - from what time?
Mr. Langlois: From 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., just before Question Period. I think we have a slot at the end of the afternoon, but just on Tuesday. In the morning there's no problem for our party.
.1320
The Chair: It would be very convenient for members who have House duties and other committees to pop down quickly on Tuesday morning. We'll try to stick to our time schedule as tightly as we can. We'll keep our questions as short as possible. We'll do no back-and-forth debate. We'll watch very closely. We'll give them five minutes to present and we'll limit ourselves to five minutes on questions.
Mr. Loney: So far it's going in the right direction. If we explain it the way we did and useMr. Milliken as an example and say the entire list is now accelerated I don't think there will be any problem in getting cooperation.
Mr. Frazer: Hopefully.
The Chair: There are other choices, such as they all are deemed non-votable and they've lost their opportunity. It's the devil and the deep blue sea on this one.
Okay? We're bending over backwards to do this, and I think we have to make sure people understand that, so they cooperate as well. As I say, there's one particular member who is not going to be terribly cooperative, but we'll have to deal with it.
We'll make sure you have copies of the bills well in advance. Take the time, if you can, to read them over well in advance, so when they come in they're not spending a lot of time giving us new information. That way we will also perhaps, in the questioning, just pick one questioner, unless there's something very urgent on the part of another questioner, in which case just catch my eye. But we'll try to keep our questions very short. We can get through everybody, we can do the debate, and then we can start the negotiations with people on moving.
Mr. Frazer: Chairman, we have to be very, very careful people don't consider they're being given short shrift; so not too brief, I don't think.
The Chair: The other thing I might suggest we do is I or the clerk can put a note out suggesting these are very unusual circumstances, the only way we can deal with this is through the following, we will be attempting to have you present, and we'll be asking questions briefly so we can at least give people an opportunity to become votable. If we explain it to them -
Mr. Loney: I think if there's a heads-up on it it will -
The Chair: - yes - and make sure they understand it, I don't think people... As I say, as long as it's very clear the other alternative is something none of them will want and it would have been easier for us...
Mr. Frazer: Would it be possible just to move all the motions forward and drop the bills back down? Is that a possibility?
The Clerk: The members would have to -
Mr. Frazer: They would have to agree to exchange.
The Clerk: - exchange, because we cannot play with the calendar.
The Chair: We have eight bills and only six motions, so we're really heavily loaded on bills.
Mr. Frazer: I thought by our deferring it it might ease off, but it won't.
The Chair: We'll hold all reporting until November 6 or 7 and we'll try to do some negotiations on time. Is that all right with everybody? Okay.
The other thing we were going to try to do today is look at the material that was sent out to us and begin our negotiations. What I'm hoping we'll do if we block that whole length of time from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Tuesday is spend part of it on the business of the committee and then see if we can reserve an hour to talk about the objectives of this committee and the review.
I hope you've read over the summary of the submissions we got. I've thoroughly read Jamie's report and some of the history of private members. It suggests that private members' business is more a vehicle for the opposition parties than it is for the House party. That's odd, because most of our difficulties seem to be coming from the Liberals who are not made votable and are fussing.
You had a 70.59% response from the Reform group and much lower responses from the two parties. It's the government party and the official opposition that feel they're being heard well in the House, so this makes perfect sense.
The concept of votability was one of the objectives we were given, so we have to decide thoroughly on our own, with a bit of help from the staff, what would happen to the schedule if we were to decide every bill will become votable. They've already shortened the debate time from five hours to three hours. The suggestion from some of the Reform members, I think, was if we make every bill votable we're going to have to shorten the debate time even further, so it fits into the House schedule.
There were a couple of other suggestions in here, such as that we devote one full day, as they do in the British House of Commons, to private members' business. That gives you a lot less urgency for the logistics of booking things than we have now.
.1325
Unfortunately, I really don't feel thirty minutes is enough time to get into anything of substance on that, but I would like to work around the table and decide, in the reading of the background material and the letters we've received from our colleagues both in government and in opposition, whether you feel the subject needs to be thoroughly opened up and looked at, or if we need to stick to the questions that were given to us.
All bills should become votable or not... What were the other questions?
Mr. Robertson: Whether the committee should be required to report back bills and procedures for doing that.
The Chair: When I looked through the material on how long it takes for bills to get back from committees, it's a very loosey-goosey system. Committees have a certain degree of autonomy over holding bills there indefinitely and waiting until the House prorogues, and then they disappear entirely.
So the two main issues are whether all bills should be votable - in which case we'd also have to look at modification on time lines - and whether we should give instructions to committees or set up a committee to do something so the bills get to committee and get back out expeditiously. If we stick to those two questions we can get this done.
Mr. Fraser: If I may, I think you've mis-worded the requirement a little bit. It said ``all or more bills become votable'' and that's one of the dilemmas we're going to be facing here. If we go to ``more'', how do we decide which ``more'' is there? That may be one of the more difficult things we have to deal with.
The Chair: I guess I was going more on the submissions.
Mr. Fraser: No, but our direction from the committee is ``all or more'', so we have to consider that, obviously.
The Chair: As I said, the submissions we've received seem to be leaning 99% toward saying all should be votable. I think we have to have Mr. Marleau and a few other experts in here to tell us about the ramifications of even considering that before we consider it as a group, and what the logistics are of sending it to committee with any order other than what is occurring now.
If you look at the history, there have been some modifications repeatedly - 1985, 1991. They keep refining the system.
In my opinion - and my opinion is only one of four of us - the difficulty is that the discontent comes from people who are not made votable, obviously. The contentment Mr. Milliken andMr. Gallaway will express - although Mr. Gallaway thinks things can get lost in committee too long - is a different perspective.
In my personal opinion, a private member's bill only becomes extremely important when it's your own. I've been in the House during private members' hour and there are hardly any people in there. It's a chicken and egg argument. Have we all decided private members' bills never get through, therefore they're not important and we don't participate, or is it really an expression of your own constituency and your own particular interests and it is a burning issue to you, but the rest of the people in the House are too busy to pay attention?
I guess a constant refinement is necessary. Part of what we have to do is ask some of the people. Six people gave submissions and volunteered to attend and answer our questions. But before we get to that stage, I think we have to ask Mr. Marleau to attend and ask a few other people who can tell us exactly what implication it is going to have on House business if we try to change a few things. For example, if we want to set one day aside, if we want to make them all votable, what are the implications? If we all sit around and decide it's a great idea and then it completely can't work or it screws up the House, we're in trouble.
With your agreement, I think I'd like to get one or two people in as witnesses to explain to us what happens if we get into this too far.
Does anybody else have anything they want to add to that?
Mr. Fraser: A lot of it seems to depend on the government attitude toward it. For instance, Anna Terrana's bill is likely to go through because the government basically supports it - it's almost government legislation. That attitude is understandable, perhaps, but you were mentioning the perspective of people who have private members' bills and say it's not going to go through anyway; they never pass. That may be partly the cause of it.
If there were a truly free vote on it, that might make a difference, as opposed to the whips imposing some sort of discipline on people.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway's bill was not popular with the government. Mr. Milliken's bill, I would venture to say, was not popular with the staff of the government. Yet both those bills have managed to roll through quite nicely. So we've had a pretty good track record as a group for picking bills that are indeed votable that people are interested in, so I think maybe the interest will come back.
.1330
Anna Terrana's bill is just logical. It should have been done a long time ago. I guess having her bring it forward before the government got around to it guarantees it will get through, but I think all parties agree it's a good bill.
As I say, this only vouches for the fact that we've been doing a pretty good job in here of picking bills that are of interest to all four parties and that are of interest to Canadian taxpayers, or they wouldn't be getting through.
I don't agree they're whipped. Don Boudria did not whip Roger Gallaway's vote or it wouldn't have gone through.
Mr. Frazer: No, but I think there have been some subtle directions to people to deny unanimous consent and so on.
The Chair: Denial of unanimous consent gives this committee a reason for being.
Mr. Frazer: Yes.
The Chair: I want to mention that again, because it happened the last Friday the House was in session, with Mr. McTeague's bill. I, as the chairman of this committee, was incensed that that happened. If we are wasting our time sitting here and every bill is going to be made votable by unanimous consent of the House, then why are we doing this?
If every single bill becomes votable, the other danger is you're going to start getting whipped votes, because a lot of bills coming through even from government members are not bills the government particularly agrees with.
We have all these dangers inherent, and that's why I think it will be good to have Mr. Marleau in to talk to and have a few other experts in to give us an unbiased opinion of what will happen. If we make them all votable or if what happened a week ago Friday continues to happen in the House, then we might as well not sit.
Mr. Langlois wanted to say something.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If he was willing to do it, certainly, it would be very interesting for the Government House Leader, Mr. Gray, whose experience goes back to 1962, to meet with our committee. He has participated in almost all parliamentary reforms. Like you, Madam Chair, I heard him yesterday commenting on the suggestions of Mr. McTeague, saying that one could not penalize members who avoided the whole process, defending their point of view, obtained a hasty unanimous consent and were able to have their proposal come to a vote, while it had not been considered as being worthy of a vote. Mr. Gray was particularly clear on this.
I don't know if you think it pertinent to make use of his expertise, but this Member has 34 years of experience. He might well be able to help us if he considers it apropos. We could ask him if he has something to tell us; I would like to hear him. I would agree with your proposal with the idea of inviting Mr. Marleau, Mr. Montpetit or another Clerk of the House, or anyone else he thinks it would be good to bring with him.
[English]
The Chair: The other thing too is, since both of our procedure and house affairs committee meetings next week are moved to the afternoon because of witnesses, could we also book Thursday morning?
Oh, Mr. Frazer is travelling?
Mr. Frazer: Thursday, yes, I'll be in the Maritimes. Sorry.
The Chair: Okay. We're just going to have to look at the schedules then.
Mr. Frazer: Madam Chair, when Mr. Marleau is here - and I support very much your idea to bring him here - could we also get him to consider the dilemma in which we find ourselves now? Basically the people whose bills are going to be before us are somewhat restricted and not really getting a fair kick at the cat because of these very circumstances.
Is there some way the procedures or the Standing Orders can be changed to preclude this happening again? It does seem rather unfair. The odds of being drawn are pretty low and the people who are being considered are really not getting a fair chance.
The Chair: First of all, Mr. Frazer, I would hope we don't say they're not getting a fair chance. In fact the reasonable thing to do would have been to just say sorry, you all get one hour and none of them will be made votable.
Mr. Frazer: That is unreasonable, isn't it?
The Chair: It is unreasonable, and that's why we didn't do it. That's why I decided we had to call this meeting, to make sure we didn't do that. But I don't think we can give those people the impression, when they're coming in to present, that they're not being listened to fairly. They will be.
Mr. Frazer: Oh, no, but the point is that rather than choosing five, we're going to be choosing two.
The Chair: Well, no. You haven't been on the committee very long, but there are many occasions when we're asked to pick three motions and two bills. That's quite standard. That doesn't change. Very rarely would we be given an opportunity to pick more than three bills in any of our sessions.
They will be getting the same opportunity. We'll just be condensing the time a little bit. The tricky part is going to be to help them negotiate time changes with people who have been made non-votable. That's where all our skills as negotiators will come in. That's where the only difficulty occurs.
But as to the selection process and listening to their presentations, they have to be told we're doing it as fairly as we always do it. I don't want people to come in here thinking this is not a fair process.
.1310
Mr. Frazer: No, obviously not, except that there just isn't as much chance as there might normally be.
With regard to bills coming back from committee, would it be unreasonable to ask the committee to report to the House as to why a bill is not coming back? Is it -
The Chair: These are questions that we should be asking of Mr. Marleau when we get him in here. I think he's the expert. If we formulate our questions in advance and are prepared to ask him those questions, he can give us pretty reasonable answers, and then we can debate it further among ourselves.
Mr. Frazer: Okay.
The Chair: Now, reasonably, what do you think we can get through on Tuesday? Do you think we can get into part B, which is the beginning of presentations by Mr. Marleau?
The Clerk: Fourteen members times ten is 140 minutes. That's a little more than two hours, and after that you're in camera.
The Chair: And that usually takes us about an hour. That puts us at three hours, so we could try to book Mr. Marleau for about 11:30 a.m. in order to ask him some of these questions.
I'm just getting very nervous. I'm going away for the week of November 16, and we have an obligation to get this over with because... Do you think we can do it?
The Clerk: At two hours and twenty minutes, you would finish hearing the witnesses at11:20 a.m., so 11:30 would leave you short. Maybe 12 p.m. or 12:30 would work.
The Chair: Okay, we'll say 12 p.m. for Mr. Marleau.
Is there anybody else that you suggest we should have in here?
Mr. Robertson: If we're just looking at next Tuesday, I think Mr. Marleau would be the logical person. He will obviously bring his staff, who are most advised in the House, and they can answer the procedural questions - the ones Mr. Frazer raised and the ones that you have mentioned.
The Chair: Is Mr. McGrath part of his staff?
Mr. Robertson: No, he was a former parliamentarian who was subsequently appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland. I'm not sure if he still is the lieutenant-governor.
The Chair: Well, I mentioned the McGrath committee report in detail, and most of what was recommended in there has either been implemented... We can ask Mr. Marleau what his reaction to it is. I think that one-hour session is going to be most valuable. And we can then see how our schedules permit a second session to which we'll invite some of the MPs who have suggested that they'd like to present. How's that for a schedule?
What I will do, with the staff's help, is come up with a little slate of questions to ask Mr. Marleau, and I'll circulate them to you in advance. If you're comfortable with them, we can start with those, and more will then come out of the conversation.
Does anybody feel rushed on this, or are you feeling comfortable?
An hon. member: Any more so than usual?
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Chair: You're just a rookie. You have to learn to keep up with us.
An hon. member: Yes, that's exactly right. He's a rookie.
An hon. member: Bull.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Settle down. You've been around a long time.
I promised to everybody that we wouldn't be long today, so is that all right with everyone? Okay, then, we'll do the invitation for Tuesday. Everybody will be here bright and early at 9 a.m. on Tuesday morning. We'll make sure we have lots of coffee, and I'll bring some buns and stuff if you're really good.
Mr. Loney: Are you going to make them?
The Chair: No, I'm not going to make them. I'm going to make Maggie make them.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We will be here from 9 am to noon. I wonder if our budget would allow us a few raw veggies or sandwiches.
[English]
The Clerk: That procedure... I don't have any budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We don't have any?
The Clerk: Our budget comes from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Langlois: It's the Permanent Committee which has the budget?
[English]
Mr. Robertson: We could check with them.
The Clerk: I know they have money, but I don't know if they use it.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: They could lend us some.
[English]
The Chair: Well, let's use it. I'll provide breakfast, but see if we can order sandwiches for lunch.
Mr. Langlois: Okay, fine.
Mr. Frazer: Lobsters.
The Chair: Settle down. You're a Reformer, for heaven's sake. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Loney: The trouble is, all this comes over as a command, you know.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Loney: Then everyone pays attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like to get some clarification relative to page 2 of Mr. Robertson's summary. The Bloc Québécois only shows up under one heading. The letters from Mrs. Venne and from Mr. Ménard should all be there.
[English]
Mr. Robertson: We didn't receive Mr. Ménard's letter until that was prepared. It has been revised, and we'll circulate it to you.
Mr. Langlois: Okay.
Mr. Robertson: There are two additional members - Mr. Mills and Mr. Ménard - who have sent short letters that are included in the revised version, and there is also a typographical mistake, which has been corrected.
The Chair: I know we're all hard done by, but if we all do our homework and make sure we read the bills before everybody comes in, and if we keep our questions very short and make sure that we read through the material that has already been handed out by the clerk so that when Mr. Marleau comes in at noon on Tuesday, we'll be well prepared to ask relevant questions. Is everybody happy?
.1340
We will ask the clerk to prepare a brief explanatory letter to particularly the people with bills and motions to invite them and tell them very briefly that we have unusual circumstances. It was this alternative, or they all would have been deemed not votable.
Special circumstances require cooperation. We'll be as gentle as we can, but firm, with them. All we need is for someone to come in here and start objecting to the process.
Mr. Loney: It was the opinion of the committee that we would handle it this way.
The Chair: Yes. It would be good to have Mr. Marleau here right when we're in the middle of this little pickle to ask him how he would have handled it.
I think we're doing fine. Thank you very much. We'll meet again on Tuesday at 9 a.m.
The meeting is adjourned.