Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence, May 17, 2001
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 17, 2001 The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:31 a.m. to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment and natural resources (Briefing on the Auditor General's Report on the Export Development Corporation's Environmental Review Framework). Senator Mira Spivak (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we are here to receive a briefing on the Auditor General's Report on the Export Development Corporation's Environmental Review Framework. Please proceed, Ms Fraser. Ms Sheila Fraser, Interim Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues and I are pleased to be with you here today to discuss the results of our audit of the Export Development Corporation's Environmental Review Framework. This audit was requested by the government in response to the 1999 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on its review of EDC's mandate. We were asked to audit the corporation's environmental review framework and its performance in applying the framework when assessing individual projects. [Translation] EDC's mandate is to support and develop Canada's export trade. It ensures Canadian exporters and provides loans to foreign buyers of Canadian goods and services. The Corporation estimates that it supports $45 billion in exports, an amount equivalent to nearly 4 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. Many international financial institutions have adopted policies to help ensure that the projects they support are environmentally sound and sustainable. When the Corporation launched its Environmental Review Framework two years ago, it took an important step to improve the management of environmental risks. Our audit found that the Framework contains most elements of a suitably designed environmental review process. It shows how the Corporation will identify environmental risks, the information it will need to assess them, the circumstances under which it will decline to support a project, and the process for monitoring and reporting to ensure that risks are appropriately managed. [English] In those respects, the framework compares favourably with the policies of other export credit agencies around the world, but there are some key gaps in transparency. To maintain its favourable position, the corporation needs to be more open with the public, particularly in disclosing environmental information. Although we have not yet had the opportunity to review it, on Tuesday, the corporation released a new disclosure policy for public comment. We also examined in our audit how the framework was operating. Our audit was designed to determine how the framework was being applied, not if EDC's decision to support or reject a project was appropriate. In our audit, we asked the following questions: Was the corporation doing what it said it would do in the framework? When it reviewed a project, were environmental risks being identified? How were these risks being managed and were environmental impacts being monitored? We found significant differences between the framework's design and its operation. We found gaps at each stage of the environmental review process: screening for environmental risk and influence, requesting and reviewing environmental information, approving projects, and monitoring. We concluded that the framework was not operating effectively. Potential environmental risks were not identified, and the corporation thus based its decisions on incomplete information. [Translation] We believe that these problems are serious because without all the information, the Corporation cannot ensure that the projects it supports meet the environmental standards Canadians expect. To strengthen its environmental review process, the Corporation needs to make changes in both the design and the operation of the Framework. To close the gaps in the Framework's design, the Corporation must focus on enhancing transparency through public consultation and disclosure. Other institutions, like the World Bank Group's International Financial Corporation, have shown that a reasonable balance can be struck between being open and transparent with the public and maintaining customer confidentiality. The principle is simple - the greater the potential environmental impact, the more rigorous the requirements for review, disclosure, and public consultation. [English] We also recommend that the corporation hold public consultations on the proposed revisions to its framework, focusing on areas where it may need to balance its commercial orientation with its broader public policy responsibilities. The corporation also needs to be more systematic in managing the framework's implementation in order to close the gap between policy and practice. To strengthen the framework's implementation, the corporation should concentrate on improving its tools that identify environmental risks and on monitoring to ensure that the framework is operating effectively. Good screening uses information on the nature, scale and potential environmental impact of a proposed project to determine the breadth, depth and type of analysis needed. The greeter the potential environmental risk, the more detailed the analysis. Also, staff needs to be trained to exercise due diligence, and both managers and the board of directors need appropriate, reliable information to monitor the framework's operation. The Export Development Corporation's responses to our recommendations are included in the report. I am pleased that the corporation agrees with our assessment and presents the steps it is taking or plans to take to address our recommendations. I am also pleased that the Minister for International Trade has asked us to do a second audit in two years. This will provide parliamentarians and the public with assurance that improvements are proceeding at an appropriate place. We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Senator Banks: I apologize for not having a working knowledge of the framework or of exactly what EDC does. I understand its main function. Does the framework address questions of environmental risk in Canada during the process of manufacturing whatever it is that is being exported, or does the framework address questions of environmental risk in the places to which the goods are being exported? Mr. Richard Smith, Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Madam Chair, most of the activity that EDC supports is exported. There are cases where it can support investments in Canada that will ultimately produce foreign exports; in those cases, the projects are subject to Canadian environmental law. The environmental review framework is really intended to cover projects undertaken in foreign countries. It does apply equally to both situations in Canada and externally. Senator Banks: In an agreement to export widgets, for example, that may have future ecological problems attached, does the framework include asking EDC to ensure that the importer in the other country subscribes to certain ecological conditions in return for and in consideration of the support that EDC will give the exporter? Mr. Smith: Yes. If the project is in another country, at a minimum, the Export Development Corporation requires that the project conform to the environmental laws and regulations of that country. The Export Development Corporation will also look at other standards, such as international standards established by the World Bank, as a way of determining whether the standards in the host country are adequate. Senator Banks: If I manufacture a widget in Canada that has higher environmental standards than the country to which the goods are being exported, does the higher standard prevail? Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. A large part of Export Development Corporation's business is supporting exports of the type that you are talking about. For example, an automobile that is made in Canada for export would be built to Canadian environmental standards. The framework largely comes into play when Canada is involved in a project in a foreign country, such as the development of a mine, of a dam or of a smelter project. Senator Banks: If I were an employee of the EDC - and this is a question of semantics - is "framework" the right word? You have said that a lot of the employees have regarded the framework more as guidance. "Guidance" and "framework" sound to me to be almost interchangeable terms. They are not instructions. Moses did not hand down the "Ten Suggestions." I am wondering whether "framework" is the right word and whether that, in itself, might change the attitude that an employee might have to implementing the framework. Ms Fraser: Madam Chair, I think the senator has made a good point. We have used the terminology that the company itself has used. There are, I think, interchangeable terms, such as "guide" or "guidance," but what we think is important is that there be more training. The framework itself is relatively new. It has been in the corporation for about two years. The employees have to better understand the importance of the framework, the rigor that needs to be applied in the application of it, and the type of information that they need to obtain. We also suggest that there must be better monitoring by way of internal audit and management and the board of directors as to its application. Senator Banks: Are you satisfied with the changes that they have proposed in the framework? Ms Fraser: The only change that we have seen so far is the draft disclosure policy that was released this past Tuesday. We have not looked at it in great detail, but it would appear to meet most of our concerns. Again, we are concerned about application, and our audit in two years will hopefully confirm that many of the weaknesses that we discovered have been resolved. The Deputy Chairman: My memory is faulty. I do not understand the relationship between this framework and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which, if I remember correctly, creates a legal requirement for the Government of Canada to conduct environmental assessments of all projects. I am not sure whether that just means projects that the government puts money into or all projects. Could you enlighten us on that aspect? Mr. Smith: Since 1990, when the government of the day considered amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, our current law, there has been an exemption for the Export Development Corporation and similar Crown corporations in terms of the application of the act. The Deputy Chairman: And the amendments? Mr. Smith: The exemption continues in the amendments. There is within the law the opportunity to develop specific regulations for Crown corporations, but if those regulations are not developed, the Export Development Corporation is exempt from the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Deputy Chairman: What is the point if, as Senator Banks says, these are suggestions are not mandatory requirements, especially when the government is interested in an exemption? Mr. Smith: When the government responded to the report of the standing committee that led to this audit, they indicated that they would consider legislative options for the Export Development Corporation. They talked about two options that they would examine. One would be a regulation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the second would be legislative amendments to the Export Development Act, which controls the export corporation. They have not yet decided which route they want to go down. The Deputy Chairman: Are you saying that as it stands right now, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to the Export Development Corporation? Is it the Export Development Corporation that gives money? Mr. Smith: Yes. The Deputy Chairman: Is there no other agency of government that supports export? Mr. Smith: Yes, there is the Canadian Commercial Corporation, for example, which does support exports. They are equally exempt from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Deputy Chairman: Was this true several years ago? Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. The Deputy Chairman: There has always been an exemption? Mr. Smith: Yes. The Deputy Chairman: Right from the beginning of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? Mr. Smith: Yes. When the federal government first began environmental assessment, the guidelines applied to federal government departments and agencies. Participation by Crown corporations from the beginning has been voluntary. Senator Banks: I had not even imagined such a thing. The government has made a rule that it applies to everyone but itself, in effect. Is that fair? Mr. Smith: It applies to government departments. To be fair, part of the reasoning in 1990 was that there were discussions in the international community about how organizations such as the Export Development Corporation should be held to account for environmental purposes. There are discussions underway right now at the OECD in Paris on this very subject. The government at that point decided that until there was an international consensus on how organizations should be regulated for environmental protection purposes, they would be exempt from the current law. Senator Banks: Would EDC assist in the export of CANDU reactors? Mr. Smith: Yes. Senator Banks: Would either the manufacturers of the CANDU reactors or EDC be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? The Deputy Chairman: That is a court case. Mr. Smith: That is why I am trying to think of an appropriate answer. Senator Banks: An appropriate answer would be yes or no. Mr. Smith: The issue of the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to Crown corporations is currently before the courts. One of the particular cases has to do with the situation the senator raises. Senator Banks: Stunning. Senator Christensen: If, in fact, the CANDU reactors fall under this act, what is the follow-up once the reactors have been exported? Is there any requirement that there will be a follow-up on how the reactors are functioning, if indeed they are being used the way they are intended to be used? Mr. Smith: The Export Development Corporation's minimum requirement is that it comply with the laws and the regulations of the country in which the project is being undertaken. The Export Development Corporation, as part of its framework, is able to impose monitoring conditions. Senator Christensen: And do they? Mr. Smith: They do sometimes. That is the best answer I can give you based on our audit. Senator Christensen: Does EDC do so on the export of our CANDU reactors? Mr. Smith: I will not comment on that specific case, but in our report we do comment on the extent of monitoring that is done by the corporation. Senator Christensen: Could you please expand upon your comment that "the corporation needs to focus on enhancing transparency through public consultation and disclosure?" What public are you referring to? Is it the Canadian public? Ms Fraser: As a general rule, the EDC does not disclose publicly any information about projects in which it provides financing either before accepting a project or after a project has been accepted. At times, press releases go out, but as a general policy, there are confidentiality clauses that do not allow disclosure of information. In our report, we have given the example of the International Finance Corporation, which ranks the projects according to environmental risk. For the riskiest projects, there is a great deal of public consultation before the project is even approved by the corporation. Senator Christensen: What public? Ms Fraser: For instance, the local public. Senator Christensen: The public in the area receiving the project? Ms Fraser: The public receiving it, but also postings to Web sites. People then have a certain period of time in which they can comment on the project and give their points of view. Mr. Smith: One of the things that we found about the World Bank, for example, is that it does require public consultation where the project is taking place. For the most environmentally risky projects, it also produces a summary of the environmental assessment. Canadians, for example, send their comments to the organization. There is a period of time for that to happen before the decision would be made by the organization. The answer in response to your question is both publics. Senator Christensen: I can see that it could be a major problem to get to the public involved in some countries to which you are exporting. It may not be a process with which they would be familiar. Why two years? It seems to me that enough problem areas have been identified. Could there not be an interim audit after one year to ensure that the process is underway and then a second full audit at the end of two years? Ms Fraser: In fact, we recommended three years in order for the corporation to have the time to make the necessary changes and that there be sufficient files for us to be able to get an adequate view of what has actually gone on. The Minister for International Trade came back and said, no, two years. Actually, two years is a fairly tight frame. Senator Christensen: But a "watching brief" would take place so that you knew something was happening. Ms Fraser: Yes. We would also hope that the internal audit group of the corporation would conduct a monitoring of the progress of implementation so that the board of directors and management would be aware of how well the implementation of the changes are occurring. Senator Wilson: I welcome what you are doing, having had some experience of the Export Development Corporation. I have seen what they do because I have travelled extensively in the Third World and heard all the complaints. I see that your brief is littered with the phrase "public consultation." My experience has been that public consultation on the part of the government or related agencies is often really a PR job. The government wants to be able to say that they have done it. For example, is there a separate department that really has a plan for public consultation? One has to be highly motivated to go to a Web site to make a comment. I think the phrase used was "Canadians could then comment," which is different from an oversight by the public or some accountability mechanism. What specific plans does the Export Development Corporation have in terms of encouraging public consultation? Are there other mechanisms for oversight? For example, is there ever a report to Parliament? Mr. Smith: In terms of public consultation, most organizations like the Export Development Corporation do not do the consultation themselves. The project proponents generally do the consultation, so the onus is on them to do the job. One of the things that the World Bank has done over the last few years is to develop guidance for holding what they consider to be good public consultation. The World Bank has a lot of experience in many countries and in many different settings. They have assembled this experience into a handbook for organizations to use on how to effectively consult the population. Senator Wilson: If the project proponent is responsible, then it is not in their self-interest to do a wide public consultation. Mr. Smith: In a sense, I think it is Export Development Corporation's responsibility to ensure that they are comfortable with the level of consultation. If not, they should be aware of any gaps in the consultation process and take that into account when they decide whether the corporation wants to involve itself. Senator Wilson: Is there any direct accountability to Parliament so that questions can be questions raised in a debate at that level? Mr. Smith: As part of their annual report, there is some environmental information in Export Development Corporation's reporting. As part of their disclosure policy, they plan on releasing even more of that type of information. It is through the annual reporting procedure that there are opportunities to comment. Senator Wilson: Which is to Parliament? Mr. Smith: Which is to Parliament. Mr. John Wiersema, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: The Export Development Corporation, as a Crown corporation, is accountable to Parliament through the responsible minister. In this case, it is the Minister of International Trade. Senator Adams: You said that some of the staff needs more training. What does that mean? Ms Fraser: The analysis of the projects and the decision to provide financing or support are made by, if you will, loan officers. They need to better understand the types of environmental information that they should be obtaining. There is a specialized group within EDC. The corporation must better understand when they should involve that specialized group to help them do the analysis of the risk. It is more in the application of the framework that there needs to be training. Senator Adams: I live in the Arctic where people buy brand new ski-doos. When these ski-doos are put on an airplane for shipment, the engines have never been started and there is no oil or gas in them; yet, they are considered dangerous goods because there are environmental considerations. We pay a lot of money per kilogram to ship with the airlines, but we also have to pay the airlines $55 because a ski-doo is considered a dangerous good. The same thing applies to brand new chemical fire extinguishers - another $40 or $50 for the dangerous good. You mentioned that EDC loan officers need more training to better understand the types of environmental information that they require before they make a decision. I paid a charge on a ski-doo that was not even a dangerous good. The people there are just making more money for the corporation. We are talking about $40 billion of exports per year. Are nuclear reactors part of that? How does that work? Ms Fraser: Many of the projects that EDC finances are very large, such as dams or mines that could have significant consequences for the environment over a fairly long period of time. That is what makes it more difficult to do a proper analysis because they are very complex projects. The loan officers may not have all the information necessary to do that. We are saying that they have to increase the training to these people to be able to properly assess and analyze the risks involved with these very large projects. Senator Adams: Do you audit the government with respect to the export of nuclear reactors? Mr. Wiersema: With respect to the export of Canadian CANDU technology to other countries, there are two Crown corporations involved. There is the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the owners of the CANDU technology, and then frequently the Export Development Corporation is involved in financing the transaction. As auditors of both those corporations, yes, we do have access to all the information to be able to carry out our work and meet our responsibilities as auditors of both those corporations. The Deputy Chairman: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act exempts Crown corporations. What about private corporations that have some relationship with EDC? The Export Development Corporation has guidelines or a framework and the government wants to develop tailor-made regulations for EDC. Do our environmental assessment responsibilities, both at home and abroad, rest on a rather shaky foundation of sand and not on stone tablets? Ms Fraser: We are concerned that the projects be analyzed to correct standards. Whether those standards are voluntary or are enshrined in legislation is a decision for parliamentarians to make. We want to make sure the framework that is being used is the best framework that it can be. The Deputy Chairman: My question, though, is that the same thing that applies to the Export Development Corporation, I presume applies to AECL. What about private companies such as Talisman? Mr. Wiersema: We conducted an audit of the Export Development Corporation's environmental review framework. The framework was designed by EDC. It is intended to communicate to other organizations, with which the EDC is involved, EDC's expectation in terms of environmental assessment before EDC will get involved with the project. It is also intended to be a source of guidance to EDC staff before they approve EDC's involvement in a particular transaction. This framework is unique to EDC. It is EDC's framework; it is not AECL's framework, and it does not apply to the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The Deputy Chairman: I understand that we are dealing specifically with the framework for EDC. I just wondered in the course of your work whether you touched on the context both of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and other procedures that govern other Crown corporations and private corporations. If you have not, that is fine. Ms Fraser: Unfortunately, we do not know if it applies to atomic energy. I could ask Mr. Smith, though, to give you some indication with respect to how it would work for private companies. Mr. Smith: Private companies are not directly covered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Generally, they fall under provincial environmental legislation. However, when the federal government is involved in an activity, when it funds a project, for example, then it has an obligation to do an environmental assessment. Even though the obligation may not be on the company, there is a federal responsibility when federal money is involved or when federal laws or regulations are involved. The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for reminding me of that. Senator Banks: We are all fortunate that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada is not concerned only with numbers and making sure that they add up properly. Your office often comments on questions of efficacy, prudence, logic and intent as opposed to results about many other things. I understand that a case presently before the courts addresses some small part of the question that I am about to ask you. Perhaps you could step back and take a global view of the question of whether a federal protection act related to the environment or consumer protection, if it is to provide that protection, ought reasonably to exempt private corporations and Crown corporations. How much sense does that make? In the past, we have heard the Auditor General comment on the seeming illogic or irrationality - those are my words, not the Auditor General's - of either policy or regulation that appears to apply at one level but seems to get messed up down here. I am chagrined this morning to hear of all of the exemptions and that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply to Crown corporations and does not apply to private companies. The Deputy Chairman: Unless there is federal funding. Senator Banks: But then it does not apply to the EDC. The Deputy Chairman: Yes, that is right. Senator Banks: I am wondering whether the Office of the Auditor General has a philosophical view as opposed to a specific view of the situation about which we have been talking this morning. Ms Fraser: As to the EDC itself, I think that will be a good subject for discussion when revisions to the EDC Act come, and I believe that will be this fall. As to the question of private industry, I do not want to leave the impression that it is not subject to any environmental legislation. It becomes a question of jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments. I will refer to some work that has been done by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development of our office. There is a relationship and a collaboration between the federal and provincial governments. There are often difficulties or gaps. Monitoring is maybe not as good as it should be, but I would not want to venture into a discussion of legalities between the federal government and the provincial governments. It is quite complex and I really do not feel sufficiently informed on the subject to make an informed comment. Senator Banks: It is complex, indeed. Precisely because of that, it sounds as though there might circumstances in which things will fall through the cracks created by those gaps. You have identified gaps with respect specifically to the EDC. It sounds as if there might be larger gaps, not necessarily bigger gaps, but gaps on a higher plane through which things might inadvertently - I am not suggesting anyone is being Machiavellian here - with all the best intentions, escape by accident the scrutiny that the act seems to provide. Ms Fraser: I will ask Mr. Smith to give his views on this question. He worked in the commissioner's office for many years and was actually interim commissioner for a period of time. Mr. Smith: We have avoided getting into the policy debate of coverage, but we have noted in previous reports issued by the commissioner that there do tend to be different sets of rules from an environmental perspective for different types of federal government organizations. Those we can talk to. The most stringent environmental requirements are for government departments and agencies. Often, organizations like Crown corporations are either asked to participate voluntarily or separate regimes are set up for them. The government's rationale for that is that Crown corporations by their nature have a different mandate than do government departments. Many of them are commercial organizations and are expected to compete with other organizations. That tends to be the rationale for different treatment. We have noted in the past that there is different treatment. What should be done about whether that different treatment is appropriate is something for parliamentarians to decide. Senator Banks: By "different," I presume that you sometimes might mean lower standards. Mr. Smith: Yes. Senator Banks: From the point of view of an auditor addressing the question of prudence and sensibility, does it make sense that government departments are held to a very high standard, perhaps the highest in the world, and that Crown corporations are held to a different and, I am assuming, a sometimes lower standard? As an auditor, is that a sensible situation? Mr. Smith: We have commented in the past that there is different treatment. It will require weighing the different values that are involved. That essentially is a decision for parliamentarians to make between the commercial orientation, for example, of an organization like the Export Development Corporation and what are appropriate standards in that circumstance, versus the broader environmental public policy objectives that the government as a whole is trying to pursue. As auditors, we note that there are differences in treatment, and that is where we tend to stop and pass the ball back to you. The Deputy Chairman: The Three Gorges Dam project in China will create vast flooding that will affect millions and millions of people. Canada is involved in this project. Can you tell me whether Canada's involvement is through EDC or through CIDA? As well, does the notion of environmental assessment apply to that project? If it does not, I would think that this project is the most egregious example. Ms Fraser: Unfortunately, because of confidentiality clauses contained in contracts with EDC, we cannot discuss whether certain projects are or are not financed by the corporation. The Deputy Chairman: That is not the question. I know you cannot comment on that. The question is this: was that project under the EDC? Can you not even tell me that? Ms Fraser: Unfortunately, I cannot talk about specific projects. We did not audit specific projects. I can only answer that the project would have been before the framework was introduced two years ago. To my knowledge, the Three Gorges project began quite a while before that time. However, if the corporation does adopt disclosure policies and does start releasing the names of all of the various projects, you might want to have the corporation talk to you about some of the projects. Senator Wilson: As a Crown corporation, is there a time limit on the appointment of directors, or are they appointed for life? Ms Fraser: I will ask Mr. Wiersema to respond to that question. We did an audit this past year of governance in Crown corporations. Mr. Wiersema was responsible for that audit. Mr. Wiersema: As the interim Auditor General has indicated, we issued to Parliament a report in February of this year on the governance of Crown corporations. It dealt with a number of aspects of the governance of Crown corporations, including the appointments of directors to Crown corporations. The answer to your question depends to some extent on the corporation, but for most Crown corporations that are governed by Part X of the Financial Administration Act, the act provides for appointments for terms of up to three years and also provides for the possibility for reappointments. Senator Wilson: What is the criteria for reappointments? Mr. Wiersema: The criteria for reappointment are not stated in the legislation. I am not aware that the government has publicly stated any criteria for reappointments. Senator Wilson: In this instance, appointments are for a term of up to three years. Mr. Wiersema: In EDC's case, yes, I believe appointments are up to three years. Senator Wilson: With the possibility of reappointment, which probably takes place. Mr. Wiersema: Yes. Senator Banks: Is there a limit on the number of reappointments? Mr. Wiersema: Not in the legislation. Senator Wilson: No, so can be for life. I see that the ombudsman was to deal with access to information, to which the EDC is not subject. Has an ombudsman been appointed yet? Is that still in the works? Ms Fraser: To my knowledge, it has not been done. Mr. Smith: It is my understanding that a job description, a position description, has been developed, but that is as far as the process has gone thus far. The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. I want to compliment them on their work and encourage them to be bold. The Office of the Auditor General is perhaps the most credible agency in Canada, and it seems that there is a lot of room for improvement. Ms Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your kind words. We very much appreciate appearing before this committee and would be glad to come back at any future time to discuss issues such as this with you. The Deputy Chairman: Senators, the meeting on May 29 on Bill C-4 will be a meeting with the Office of the Auditor General. Senator Kenny: Before we adjourn, may we go in camera briefly? The Deputy Chairman: Certainly. The committee continued in camera.