Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 19 - Evidence - June 20, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act, met this day at 4:06 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order and welcome. Senator Johnson is the sponsor of the bill in the Senate. We will begin our study of Bill C-61, to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, and to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act.
[Translation]
We have the pleasure of welcoming the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Peter MacKay, who will make a presentation on the bill and will answer our questions. The minister is accompanied by officials from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
[English]
They are Mr. Paul Gibbard, Director General (Acting), Human Security and Human Rights Bureau; and Ms. Mi Nguyen, Senior Policy Advisor, Humanitarian Affairs and Disasters Response Group. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, and senators.
I will begin by thanking Senator Johnson for sponsoring this important bill. I will speak to the subject matter of Bill C-61, to implement the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols govern the conduct of parties to armed conflicts and are fundamental pillars of the international humanitarian law. The 194 states party to the Geneva Conventions are the first international treaties to enjoy universal ratification. This underscores their critical importance and relevance to Canada and to nations around the world.
I propose to focus my remarks today on three important themes: First, the importance of Protocol III internationally; second, why timely ratification by Canada is important and; third, to provide a brief overview of the bill.
[Translation]
The third additional protocol is also known by the name of Protocol III. It was adopted in December 2005 and recognizes the red crystal as an additional emblem to the existing red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun.
Canada signed Protocol III a year ago and our signature represented our public intention to pass legislation in order to ratify this protocol. This bill is the fulfillment of that undertaking.
Bill C-61 was introduced in the House of Commons on June 8, 2007.
[English]
This date is important because it also marks the thirtieth anniversary of additional Protocol I and Protocol II. These additional protocols provide a crucial framework to strengthen the protection of civilians and others in armed conflict, introducing essential rules on the conduct of hostilities and the methods and means of warfare. They enjoy wide support, with some 165 ratifications each.
For its part, Protocol III establishes an additional distinctive emblem, the red crystal. This distinctive emblem, like the red cross and the red crescent emblems, is important because it was developed to protect humanitarian workers of the movement to provide critical assistance to the people affected by conflicts and natural disasters. Why is it significant? In short, the red crystal is meant to be free of extraneous religious or political connotations, thereby enhancing the protective purpose of the emblem without offending or forcing upon a participant organization a symbol that they do not accept.
Protocol III will benefit those national societies of the Red Cross Movement that are not comfortable, for example, with using either the red cross or the red crescent. For example, the national societies of Eritrea and Kazakhstan have indicated an interest in using the red crystal, which should facilitate their entry into the Red Cross Movement. Indeed, with the adoption of the third protocol, the entry into the Red Cross Movement of the Magen David Adom — the Israeli society — and the Palestine Red Crescent Society was facilitated in June 2006.
It has taken more than 50 years to secure agreement on Protocol III. Despite the humanitarian nature of this exercise, this issue became entangled in Middle East politics. It is our hope that Protocol III will help to further the universality, impartiality and effectiveness of the Red Cross Movement in responding to conflicts and natural disasters. I believe that the timely ratification of Protocol III is important for a number of reasons. It has taken us 50 years to reach this stage. Protocol III entered into force January 14, 2007. Since that time, 84 states have signed, including Canada, the U.S.A., Israel, Switzerland, Norway and some EU members, but only 17 states to date have ratified it. The United States, an ardent supporter of the protocol, ratified Protocol III in March.
In order to encourage broad international acceptance of the red crystal emblem, it is essential that as many states as possible ratify Protocol III. Timely ratification by Canada would allow our country to advocate for the wide acceptance of the red crystal from a position of international leadership. To add legitimacy to our advocacy, we have to take this important step now.
[Translation]
It would facilitate our efforts to bring States on board who continue to have reservations. And it would allow us to join with like-minded countries such as the U.S.A., Switzerland, Norway and some key EU members such as the U.K. and Netherlands, which attach great importance to the red crystal.
Early ratification would also demonstrate our commitment to the international Red Cross Movement. Through ratification, Canada would be helping to resolve a long-standing irritant for the movement. It would demonstrate our continued commitment to play a proactive role on this issue.
[English]
If the draft bill were passed by the end of this September, Canada would be able to ratify Protocol III by the time of the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to be held this November in Geneva. The conference takes place every four years and brings together all parts of the movement, including the 194 state parties and 186 national societies. It is a key opportunity to promote the red crystal. Canada has an important opportunity to demonstrate real leadership on this issue in November. The timely passage of Bill C-61 is an important step in this regard.
As an overview, I would state that Bill C-61 poses technical amendments to three separate acts that are not controversial. It will not change the existing acts in any substantive way, but it is required to comply with Protocol III. The Geneva Conventions Act, the Canadian Red Cross Society Act and the Trade-marks Act are the three we are talking about. These amendments would give the same level of protection in Canadian law to the red crystal as is enjoyed by the red cross. Protocol III provides that the red crystal shall enjoy the same status and the same conditions for its respect and its use as those enjoyed by the existing red cross and red crescent emblems.
Concretely speaking, the amendments to existing legislation would have the effect of making it a crime to kill or injure an enemy in war by using the red crystal to feign protected status and prohibits people from wearing, using or displaying the emblem of the red crystal, the words ``red crystal'' or an imitation thereof except with the written authorization of the Canadian Red Cross Society.
The timely passage of Bill C-61 is a priority for the government and, I would suggest, a priority for all in the Parliament of Canada. It speaks to our commitment to international humanitarian law and to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement worldwide. It is a show of unfettered respect and support. Therefore, I ask senators to demonstrate that leadership as well. I know honourable senators will consider this issue expeditiously.
The Deputy Chairman: I must confess that until we saw the bill, I had not heard of the red crystal symbol and would not have known what it is. As I understand it, the red cross has a religious connotation to some people. I always thought the red cross was nothing more than the Swiss flag reversed by the person who founded the Red Cross Movement because he was Swiss. I did not think it had any particular significance other than it was the Swiss flag in reverse. We have seen wartime pictures of a hospital ship or tent with a red cross on it, so that symbol is well-known. The red crystal would have to be promoted well so that people around the world would be aware of its significance. Is there a proposal to publicize this symbol?
Mr. MacKay: That is a good question. I would suggest that the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have plans to promote the recognition of the new emblem. As I indicated, the symbol appears in red, although I do not have a copy in colour. I mean no insult, but it looks like a baseball diamond because it is an outline of a red diamond. The significance is the addition of an emblem that has no religious connotation and that will not be misinterpreted or found to be offensive or unacceptable in certain countries. There will be efforts to promote and engage in an exercise of familiarity over a period of time so that other countries recognize this new symbol as having the same meaning to protect and to allow humanitarian aid to flow. As an example of the relevance, on the Gaza Strip, given the current events, this symbol will allow, as we saw last evening, Israeli ambulances to enter Palestinian territories to help facilitate the movement of injured persons to hospital. Otherwise, there was some reluctance for the Red Cross Movement to do so without a symbol that was acceptable to the Israeli equivalent of the Red Cross Movement.
Senator Corbin: As critic of this bill for the official opposition in the Senate, I committed myself to give it speedy passage. I reiterate those feelings today. Of course I am not speaking for my colleagues; they may have reservations, but I doubt it.
In any case, when dealing with the Canadian Red Cross, I cannot help but remember when I was a kid attending primary school in Grand Falls, New Brunswick, that every year we would be solicited to contribute five cents to the Canadian Red Cross. In return, we would get a little badge, which we would wear proudly on our lapel until we lost it at recreation or elsewhere.
In that sense, I suppose I have always been a strong supporter of the Canadian Red Cross. Five cents in those days meant a lot to the family. We all contributed our nickel.
There is one thing in your statement that you seem to emphasize to some extent. I am referring to the French text where you say ``cette question épineuse'' as if this was such an insurmountable challenge to counter this point today where you, in fact, enact our commitment by way of legislation. I do not see what is so complicated in striving to achieve what is basically such an obvious and happy initiative.
On the other hand, you said passage of this bill would facilitate your efforts to win other states that seem to be reticent. You specifically mentioned that it would allow you to join countries of common optics such as the United States, Switzerland, Norway and certain key members of the EU; namely the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, who attach a great importance to the red crystal.
Is there opposition to this in Europe? What is the purpose of this statement? It seems to me that underneath it there is a problem or a challenge that has to be overcome.
Mr. MacKay: Senator, thank you for your question and for your expressed affection for the Canadian Red Cross going back to your childhood in New Brunswick. I believe many Canadians share that warmth about the organization.
To answer your question directly, I am not aware of any organized opposition or otherwise in any country, in any other organization. If anything, I am trying to emphasize before you today some degree of frustration felt by certain states that it has taken 50 years to get to this point. There was a period of time where it appeared that this issue had simply stalled for the Red Cross Movement.
I am trying to parlay to you that Canada now has an opportunity to show some leadership; to finally bring this subject of the red crystal to fruition, to work with our international partners. I highlighted certain countries that have chosen the path that Canada has chosen. That is, to be proactive, to pass it through their parliaments, to ratify it. Then I believe we will be able to work with others to try to stress the urgency of having this happen with the other member countries.
Again, I am not aware of any actual resistance, but countries such as Eritrea and Kazakhstan are those that have, on the other hand, expressed their desire to start using this symbol.
To go back to the chairman's question, the sooner we have ratification by member countries, the sooner the world will start becoming more familiar and more accepting of this additional symbol, the red crystal.
Senator Corbin: Is there a magic number you have to reach before it comes into effect or something of that nature?
Mr. MacKay: No. In fact, as I mentioned, there is virtual unanimity as far as expressed support. To put it frankly, these are the jigs and reels and hoops we have to go through now for official ratification.
Senator Corbin: Finally, the minister has referred to the red cross, the red crescent and the red lion and sun. Our understanding is that the red lion and sun is no longer used much.
Mr. MacKay: That is correct. While those symbols still bear recognition, they have fallen into disuse over time. I believe they technically remain as part of the founding of the Red Cross Movement, but are no longer symbols that are used to promote the movement itself.
Senator Johnson: The bill has been received very well in the Senate. I am very proud to sponsor it. People have great affection for the Red Cross Movement, and it has taken quite a while to make this change. I am glad it is looking like it will be fine in the next day or two.
I would like a couple of matters clarified. Can you explain the current protection under Canadian law for the red cross and the red crescent emblems?
Mr. MacKay: I may include my officials in this. There is, of course, protection not only under Canadian law but also under international humanitarian law that allows those wearing, sporting or holding that symbol to expect, even in a place of conflict, to be free from any attack, violence or aggression. The obvious implications there are that those representing the movements of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal are there to promote humanitarian efforts, most often in a war zone situation or a disaster zone, and they are to be afforded those protections.
Senator Johnson: I will speak again on it tomorrow. What happens if a charity, for example, is using or wishing to use a symbol identical or similar to the red crystal emblem, established by Protocol III, for a non-commercial purpose?
Mr. MacKay: There is a provision that is quite unique in that it is grandfathered. If this diamond-shaped symbol, the crystal, like the crescent or the cross, was being used previously by an organization for some purpose, they would, in fact, be protected. It is grandfathered. There are prohibitions for commercial purposes, as there are for any misuse of the symbol itself.
Senator Johnson: What happens if a company's logo is identical or similar to the red crystal emblem established by Protocol III, given what is out there today?
Mr. MacKay: That is again a good question. It has to do with the Trade-marks Act, which is why there is an amendment or offsetting provision there. Protocol III would stipulate that contracting parties must take necessary measures for the prevention and repression of any misuse of the distinctive emblems; that would include all three — this would apply equally to this new symbol.
The Trade-marks Act amendment would protect the red cross, crystal and crescent. That is, again, the necessity for the amendment to the Trade-marks Act. It is meant to narrow its use, obviously, for the intended purpose of humanitarian relief.
Senator Johnson: How do we get universal ratification? How many countries are left to come on board?
Mr. MacKay: All of them. I believe 17 countries currently have taken the step that we will be taking — 17 countries out of 194.
Senator Johnson: Do you have a timeline?
Mr. MacKay: I would not call it an artificial timeline, but the November convention in Geneva is something that all countries should strive to attain. Once we have done the right thing and passed it through our Parliament, it will embolden and enable our own country to pursue some of those who are perhaps taking their time. I am hoping we will be able to get a good number of those countries on board by November.
Senator Johnson: I am sure we will pass it through our Parliament so you can carry on your good work.
Mr. MacKay: Thank you for the work you have done on this bill.
Senator Andreychuk: Minister, the symbols are important because the Red Cross Movement and the work they do are important under the Geneva Conventions. The symbols are important for those civilians who need to access the Red Cross Movement and vice versa. It is also a protection for the Red Cross Movement workers. It is important that the symbols are not misused by people who are not Red Cross Movement representatives, but also so they have some credible recognition within the confines of where they are working. I feel adding this symbol will be fine.
You say that it will have to be publicized and advertised so people understand the symbol of the crystal and so that it has the same resonance under the Geneva Conventions as the other symbols. Is there an ability to have only one symbol within a country, or can a country use more than one symbol?
Mr. MacKay: My understanding is that countries are free to choose. They can use one or they can use all. A multicultural country such as our own, I would suggest, in some communities would be able to use one or all. Other countries may choose to use just one. The use of the red crystal itself, the subject of this bill, is meant to enable those countries that are currently loath to use the two existing symbols. It is really, quite simply put and practically speaking, to expand those countries that to date have been unwilling or unable to accept and use the existing two symbols. It is really about tolerance. It is a progressive movement on the part of the Red Cross Movement. It is something they have undertaken to do for years, and this is now bringing finality to that effort.
Picking up on a point made previously by the senator from New Brunswick, Canada itself may undertake an active promotion of this new symbol, including perhaps having kids pay $5 now rather than five cents, given the change in the economy, to promote the use of these symbols. The red cross, crescent and crystal are in keeping with Canadian values and our humanitarian efforts around the world.
Senator Andreychuk: It goes back to education. It is not a question of getting a consensus in the community. It is about getting the service the person in distress needs and protection for the worker providing it. I am simplifying what the Red Cross movement does.
I recall, setting aside the political reasons for doing it or not, a concern that you would end up with more symbols that have to be identified with the Red Cross Movement. Will there be another symbol and another symbol? The more you add, the more confusion there could be. Having one simple symbol is important. We recognize the political reality that at least getting a symbol there is the best alternative we can come up with. I am curious that you say we would start promoting. I can understand that within Canada, but in other regions, would that not compound the problem?
Mr. MacKay: I take your point about, in an ideal world, having one symbol for the Red Cross Movement. Perhaps I would go so far as to say to date the red cross itself is perhaps one of the most universally recognized of any symbol in the world. I think back to the chair's point in his opening comment. Practically speaking, the political reality being what it is, the goal is to enlarge those countries that would benefit from the organization and the umbrella of protection that flows from the organization itself. That is truly what is behind this bill.
I would also draw your attention to clause 2, which speaks to the Geneva Conventions Act, that criminalizes the perfidious use of the red cross, crescent and now crystal to kill or seriously injure an enemy. The purpose of this amendment is to expand that protection, and to use it for an insidious purpose is against the law and against the Geneva Conventions Act.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat like you; the other evening when the senator presented her bill, I had to go on Google on the Internet in order to find out the definition of the red crystal. I think we should take this opportunity to promote it. Earlier on you showed us a black and white logo. If we had a coloured copy with which to start promoting this symbol it would be useful because people are not aware of it. It is only in black and white but just pretend it is in colour. It is the symbol in the end.
[English]
There are 194 state parties and 186 national societies. Why would there be some national societies that would not have a state or vice versa? You do not have to answer that today, but I am curious about the distinction between the state society and the national societies.
Mr. MacKay: I appreciate your undertaking to be part of the promotion of the symbol. I wish I had a large colour symbol here to hold up.
I believe the discrepancy between 194 state parties and 186 national societies is that some countries have yet to form a national society. While the country itself may have accepted the use and the convention, they have yet to actually form a national society. I believe that is the reason.
Senator Downe: Minister, I support this bill, as do a number of my colleagues, but I have one question. In your statement, you talked about it taking 50 years, and then the issue became entangled in Middle East politics. Could you or your officials expand on that?
Mr. MacKay: I meant that within Israel, they did not feel comfortable using the two particular existing symbols. While they very much promote the idea of the Red Cross Movement and its humanitarian effort, the symbols that attach to the cross, which some interpret as St. George's cross, and the crescent, which was more in keeping with Arab culture, were not in the comfort zone of the people of Israel.
Senator Gustafson: You say Canada would be helping to resolve a long-standing irritant. Why the irritant? Why is it long-standing? We all know what the cross symbolizes. We all know the symbol of the cross. Perhaps in some parts of the world they do not know what that is. I have some questions about it, quite frankly. I might say that I have not investigated it enough, but symbols are important.
Mr. MacKay: They certainly are.
Senator Gustafson: Someone mentioned the red lion. The lion is of the tribe of Judah. We know it is the symbol of a nation. The eagle is the symbol of a nation. Symbols are important. How does the Red Cross Movement itself feel about this move?
Mr. MacKay: Senator, one of the founding principles of the Red Cross Movement itself is the principle of universality and inclusiveness. Referencing the earlier question, the symbol here will do just that. It will expand the practical application of the work of the Red Cross Movement while at the same time respecting religious and cultural norms and values. Some countries simply felt the existing symbols were such that they were inconsistent with their culture and religious beliefs. That is the principle behind the expansion of the use of this new symbol.
To your question of why 50 years, I would suggest that there are many conflicts in the world today that go back to the New Testament, if not beyond. Fifty years is a long time to be fighting and holding this up because of a symbol, and being an impediment to the critically important work of the Red Cross Movement. The addition of this symbol, which will represent the expanded ability to bring some of those countries on board to meet that principle of universality, I would suggest would override any confusion initially over the addition of the symbol itself. It then becomes a matter of all of us and Canada to be at the forefront of expanding people's acceptance and recognition of this new symbol.
Senator Corbin: I have two questions, about the nomenclature used in the text of the bill.
[Translation]
In French, on the cover page, it reads: Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society. I always thought that the Canadian Red Cross Society was a bilingual institution. This leads me to believe that it is incorporated under an English name only. Is that the case?
Mr. MacKay: Senator, you are right, that is exactly it. It is necessary, for the presentation, to have a title with a bilingual introduction. It must be changed.
Senator Corbin: Further on, section 5 states:
The act is amended by adding the following after section 9:
10. This act may be cited as the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
Does this have the effect of making the official name of the Canadian Red Cross Society bilingual?
Mr. MacKay: I believe so, certainly, the title is bilingual. It is a Canadian institution and it is necessary. During your deliberations today, you have the ability of making the necessary changes.
Senator Dawson: There is only the issue of making sure that we move quickly. If the clerk can assist us, we want a terminology that will allow us to pass the bill while assuming that section 10 precedes the introductory paragraph because indeed in section 1, it refers to the ``Canadian Red Cross Society.'' As one of our goals today is to proceed quickly, if we amend the bill, it must be returned to the House of Commons.
[English]
By the time it gets here, it will be too late.
Mr. MacKay: It also has something to do with the short title versus the long title. I will ask Ms. Nguyen to respond.
Mi Nguyen, Senior Policy Advisor, Humanitarian Affairs and Disasters Response Group, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: To clarify, the drafters were faced with the problem where they understood that the long title in French was still citing the Canadian Red Cross Society in English, but because other laws were referring to this long title in the same way, the only way to circumvent that was to introduce a short title, which would now have a title completely in French.
That is why the long title in French still has ``Canadian Red Cross Society'' in English. There was no authority to amend all the other laws in Canadian law that referred to that act.
Senator Dawson: We would be, in fact, modernizing the title. If we adopt it as it is now, would we be basically saying that now the Red Cross is la Croix-Rouge?
Ms. Nguyen: Exactly.
Senator Corbin: I want to leave this topic, unless other senators wish to comment, but I have the permission of the chair, whom I approached earlier, to put the following question to you.
We seldom have an opportunity to discuss the Red Cross Movement activities generally and I do not want to catch you by surprise.
Mr. MacKay: It is fine, as long as it is not about the Atlantic accord.
Senator Downe: That is next door.
Senator Corbin: I heard on the news some months ago, in connection with the tragic events of the tsunami that affected the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean areas, that the Canadian Red Cross or the Red Cross Society, nationally or internationally, which had received very generous and heartfelt contributions from thousands upon thousands of Canadians to help relieve the grief and disaster, has not been able to spend all of the money donated on that occasion. I heard that as a news item. I have not been able to verify it, and I have not attempted to do so, but do you have comments in that respect? This is critical in terms of soliciting the generosity of Canadians for similar future events if they do occur. Is the Canadian Red Cross in fact utilizing the donations wisely, and what do they do with surpluses when they have them?
Mr. MacKay: My experience, and what I have heard about the Red Cross Movement in my current capacity — the work they are doing in Afghanistan, the humanitarian relief they have provided in times of both natural disasters and the type of conflict disaster we saw in Lebanon last summer — leads me to believe the Canadian Red Cross and the Red Cross Movement internationally are among the most, if not the most, credible and trusted humanitarian relief organizations in the world. I could not provide an answer with respect to what they do when they have a specific plea for donations from Canadians for a specific project. I expect if a surplus were to occur, it would go into their general revenue.
There may be a situation where they would have difficulty delivering relief — for example, when a country's government may be putting up roadblocks or preventing them from providing the type of relief. I think of a country such as Sudan, where there have been instances when the government has been resistant to the efforts of humanitarian relief from the UN, non-governmental organizations, NGOs, and organizations such as the Red Cross Movement. However, as for the specific instance and the reporting of the Canadian Red Cross's inability to deliver all of the aid to the donor recipients, if you could provide me with a little more context of that particular case, I would be glad to look into it for you.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: If we could pass the bill, senators who had questions would be able to ask them afterwards. In that way, we would be sure the bill is passed.
[English]
Do you mind, senator?
Senator Andreychuk: Five seconds.
Senator Dawson: Senator, I have some questions and I am not asking them.
The Deputy Chairman: It is a government bill that we are trying to facilitate.
Senator Andreychuk: Just so it does not get lost, I do not know if it was the Canadian Red Cross, but there was one NGO in Canada during the tsunami that had more than they thought they could absorb in that case; and they went public to ask if they could redirect that to aid in Africa.
The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry, Senator Andreychuk; I do not want to be rude, but the options are very simple. We have a few minutes and either we pass the bill or we do not. You are the government members, and we are trying to facilitate.
Senator Gustafson: I just wanted to say that the soldiers returning from the Second World War had the highest regard for the Red Cross Movement.
Senator Downe: Also the Salvation Army, for the record.
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to ask if the committee is ready to go into clause-by-clause on Bill C-61.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-61, to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, and to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act.
Shall the title be postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. Now, Senator Dawson, if anybody has any more questions, you have five seconds because we have to get out of here.
Thank you very much, and thank you, Minister, for being patient with us and answering our questions.
The committee adjourned.