Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 26 - Evidence - Meeting of June 20, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-42, to amend the Quarantine Act, met this day at 4:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
This afternoon, the committee will examine Bill C-42, to amend the Quarantine Act.
[Translation]
Bill C-42, an Act to amend the Quarantine Act, was sent to our committee by Senate on Monday, June 18.
[English]
To present the substance of this bill and answer questions, we have with us witnesses from the Public Health Agency of Canada. We have Dr. Howard Njoo, Director General of the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response; Mr. John Cuningham, Senior Counsel; and Mr. Dennis Brodie, Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Policy Group.
Dr. Howard Njoo, Director General, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Public Health Agency of Canada: Thank you honourable senators of the committee. I am the Director General for the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which is responsible for the administration of the Quarantine Act as part of the Public Health Agency of Canada. It is my pleasure to join you today to speak to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Quarantine Act.
Bill C-42 was introduced in the House of Commons on the same day the 2005 Quarantine Act was brought into force, December 12, 2006. The purpose of Bill C-42 is to amend the current wording in section 34 of the new Quarantine Act. This section was not brought into force, owing to a problem with the language used in that section.
Section 34 is a reporting provision. In general terms, it requires operators of commercial carriers to report, in advance of arrival in Canada, if they have grounds to suspect there is a risk to public health on board or if a death has occurred.
Advance notification provides quarantine officers on the front lines with access to timely information. This information will help facilitate the application of appropriate control measures at Canadian points of entry to stem the spread of disease.
Section 34 is also crucial to the Minister of Health should a decision need to be made to order the diversion of a conveyance, if necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians.
[Translation]
Section 34 turned out to be impracticable when came the time to draft enforcement regulations to make it effective. More specifically, there are two main problems with the wording of clause 34.
First, the driver of a conveyance cannot be in a position to determine which Canadian point of entry is the closest at the time of notification. If the driver does not know exactly where to report a situation, any intervention by public health authorities could be delayed.
The second problem has to do with designating an authority that must be present at the nearest point of entry. Actually, there are Canadian points of entry such as small ports where no authorities are present.
[English]
Bill C-42 will address these problems. New wording will obligate operators of conveyances, used in the business of carrying persons or cargo, to inform a quarantine officer, as soon as possible, before the conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada. Conveyance operators are required to notify in advance if they have grounds to suspect any traveller, cargo or thing on board may cause the spread of a communicable disease listed in the act, or there has been a death on board.
The proposed new wording in Bill C-42 will not require the development of a regulation regarding the designation of an authority, as in the present section 34. Instead, Bill C-42 replaces the designated authority with quarantine officers, nurses or medical health practitioners with public health expertise.
For the air and marine community, Bill C-42 ensures the reporting obligation extends beyond the time the conveyance reaches the territorial sea of Canada or the airspace above, and continues until the time the conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada.
For operators of ground conveyances, bus, rail and the trucking industry, Bill C-42 ensures the reporting obligation extends up to the point of arrival at a Canadian entry point.
[Translation]
As rephrased, Bill C-42 would require that a quarantine officer be first notified either directly or indirectly. It would be enough to provide notification through an intermediary, on the condition that the information must reach a quarantine officer as soon as possible.
This flexibility respects existing communication protocols as well as existing operational practices. Bill C-42 would also allow for targeting other conveyances through future regulations as the need might arise in order to mitigate any threat to public health.
[English]
Bill C-42 goes beyond the requirements under the International Health Regulations, which just came into force on June 15, 2007, by obligating operators of land conveyances to report in advance. This will ensure that Canada has the best protection measures in place at its border to help safeguard Canadians from the importation of a communicable disease. To help facilitate the implementation of this requirement, an information bulletin will be circulated to industry. It will include a list of general signs and symptoms to look out for and a 1-800 number that will connect a conveyance operator to a quarantine officer on a 24/7 basis.
Bill C-42 also clarifies that common law defence of due diligence is available to all conveyance operators if reasonable efforts are made to comply with this reporting requirement. This ensures that Charter rights are protected.
I wish to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for taking the time to review and study this proposal. It is my hope that Bill C-42 in its current form will address your concerns as a collective and proceed to the next stage of the Senate process in a timely manner.
The Chairman: The Quarantine Act received Royal Assent on May 13, 2005; yet the act was not brought into force until December 2006. Are you able to explain why it took to long to do that?
Dennis Brodie, Manager, Legislative and Regulatory Policy Group, Public Health Agency of Canada: Senator, you are right that the bill was given Royal Assent in May 2005 and brought into force in December 2006. During the intervening period, much work was required to train quarantine officers, environmental health officers and other officials responsible for enforcing the act at land borders. In addition, it was important to have airport authorities, customs officers, et cetera, aware of the act and how the process works when a traveller arrives in Canada, is processed by a customs officer and is referred to a quarantine officer. Also, because we are linked to local health authorities, it was important to have discussions with those people as well. Many planning and implementation activities occurred after the bill was given Royal Assent and before it was brought into force.
The Chairman: You have been operating under old regulations to cover off the concerns which section 34 of this bill will cover off. There was a notorious case just a few weeks ago of a man with tuberculosis arriving on a Czech airline. Apparently he stopped in Montreal and then proceeded to the United States, where this case became a cause célèbre. Apparently, the Czech airline was aware of the tuberculosis-infected passenger on board, but did not report it. Was there a violation? What have you done with respect to that situation? It does not sound as though, even with the old regulation, your attempt to do something about it was very effective.
Dr. Njoo: The current act is effective. There was a contravention, which I will get into. There is an obligation for the pilot to report in advance if he is aware of a sick passenger on board. By all accounts — and it has been well documented in the media — the individual appeared well and did not display any symptoms and, therefore, looked like any other "normal'' person. The airline pilot or the crew would not have picked it up. However, under the old Quarantine Act, that traveller is required to disclose if he is aware that he is infected with a listed disease, which tuberculosis is, when arriving at the Canadian border; in this case Montreal. He did not do that and the matter has been referred to the RCMP.
The Chairman: He had an obligation to disclose that disease, and would under the new provisions of this act?
Dr. Njoo: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Brodie, how many persons enter Canada by land each day?
Mr. Brodie: Statistics Canada collects the declaration forms that we all fill out when we return to Canada. They do not collect them at land borders of course, but they have this information for air travellers. About 66 million people crossed the Canada-U.S. border by land in 2006, and about 3 million of those arrived by bus or train. Large numbers of people cross the border via private vehicle or on foot and a small percentage arrives by bus or train.
Senator Cochrane: Given that the government amended the bill to include land conveyances, tell us about the original argument at the health committee that the inclusion of land conveyances was inappropriate and unworkable.
Mr. Brodie: There were a couple of reasons. First, Dr. Njoo mentioned the International Health Regulations. Those regulations only require advance reporting by air and marine conveyances, and the straightforward reason is that is the major form of transportation these days. There has been a system in place for a long time that requires those types of conveyances to report in advance. Airlines can notify either their agents on the ground or air navigation and that information is readily transmitted to a quarantine officer. Although it is more developed for trains, it is not a standard practice for buses.
With the huge number of people crossing the Canada-U.S. border, it was believed that the public health benefits we would receive from having an advance-notice requirement in place for land conveyances would not justify the cost of imposing this requirement on those types of conveyances, because it would be a new system. In that respect, we have tried to minimize the impact by having the 1-800 number that any bus driver with a cell phone could utilize. Remember that these people are on a bus in the United States. If there is an ill traveller on board, we think the bus driver would call the local ambulance service to have that passenger dealt with before he or she reaches the Canadian border. That was another reason for excluding land conveyances. There are certainly good reasons to include them; it is more complete, we can ensure that the impact is minimal, and it ensures that we have a complete reporting mechanism in place.
Senator Cochrane: There could be someone on a bus who does not look ill, just as there was on the plane. What do we do then?
Mr. Brodie: You are right. In the vast majority of cases, people arriving do not appear ill, especially if it is a communicable disease, and Dr. Njoo can speak to this more appropriately.
As with most communicable diseases, there is an incubation period. From the time a person makes contact with the disease until that person shows symptoms can be anywhere from five to 20 days.
Senator Cochrane: That is the danger zone, is it not?
Mr. Brodie: The person does not exhibit symptoms, so a conveyance operator, a crewmember onboard an aircraft, would not know. The person would not look ill, so the crew could not report anything. However, there is still the requirement that the traveller is required under the act to report if he or she has a communicable disease or has been in contact with someone who may have a communicable disease. The traveller must report that knowledge on arrival in Canada.
Senator Cochrane: What about travelling by land?
Mr. Brodie: The same requirement applies.
Senator Cochrane: Do you mean the person designated as being ill?
Mr. Brodie: Yes.
Dr. Njoo: Under the Quarantine Act, all travellers are required to report any illness at the border. This provision for advanced notification is an additional measure that ensures further protection.
The reason we initially looked at having only advance notification for airplanes and ships is that from a practical point of view, for public health control measures, if a passenger aboard an airplane is ill, that person cannot get off the plane. It makes sense to phone ahead to the final destination — let us say the Toronto airport — so that an ambulance and all of the medical personnel can be ready to deal with the situation.
With respect to land conveyance such as a tour bus coming to Canada from upstate New York, if someone is ill, it would make more sense for the bus driver to drop that person off at a local hospital rather than call the Canadian border. If the situation does arise, however rare it may be, at least we will have provisions to take care of it.
Senator Cochrane: What happens if the passenger does not inform the bus driver? Is there a charge?
Dr. Njoo: If the person knowingly does not declare a disease of which he or she is aware, it is a contravention of the act.
The Chairman: Summary conviction would bring a fine of not more than $750,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both.
Senator Keon: The bill seems very clear. I spoke to it in the Senate at second reading. One of the great strengths of the new bill is clarity for reporting, right?
Dr. Njoo: Yes.
Senator Keon: Under the old system, there were numerous ways of reporting and missing locations. Now there will be an integrated reporting system, correct?
Dr. Njoo: Yes.
Senator Keon: Could you please tell the committee more about that? It seems to me to be a tremendous improvement on section 34.
Dr. Njoo: You are right, senator, in the sense that part of the problem with the wording in the old section 34 was the loose term "designated authority at the nearest point of entry.'' That was problematic, which we discovered when we tried to apply it in terms of the regulations. The new wording refers specifically to "quarantine officer,'' someone in our program who is looking out for infectious diseases. That wording clearly specifies a person in terms of the designation point. There is clarity.
In terms of the new aspect of land conveyances, we will be operationalizing it with a 1-800 number and also an information bulletin to industry to minimize the impact. We will also be informing them as to what they can do if a situation arises aboard a bus or train. We have that covered. As Mr. Brodie mentioned, there are already well- established advance notification systems in place for airplanes and boats arriving in Canada.
Mr. Brodie: The system is working fairly well; however, we cannot say we are getting 100 per cent compliance with the requirement to advance report, at least on the airside. As you can appreciate, hundreds of different airlines fly into Canada. They all have to know about the requirement, even though it is an international standard. The World Health Organization has a fair amount of work to do to ensure that all of the conveyance operators are aware of this requirement. Understand that it is not just a requirement for Canada; it is a requirement for every member of the World Health Organization. Airlines have to report in advance.
As I said, we are not getting 100 per cent compliance, but when we do get a call, you are absolutely right, there is a good system in place. Our quarantine officers stationed at six of the major international airports do get calls through the air navigation system and an airport authority is able to respond when a plane lands.
We have good cooperation with local health authorities because if we have to refer a traveller for a medical examination or a potential quarantine situation, he or she is referred to a pre-identified local hospital, whether in Toronto, Peel or Vancouver at Richmond Hospital. Once referred, public health measures are applied, and we still maintain authority over the travellers. The quarantine officer has the authority to release the traveller. This advance notice requirement is central to that whole system of operation.
The Chairman: You say this is an international requirement and that we are falling in line with it. Is the system the same, or are there different systems for different countries?
Mr. Brodie: That is the advantage of having an international standard. All member states agreed on the requirement. It is a requirement that the master of a vessel, if it is a cruise ship or the captain of an airplane, must report in advance. The standard is the same around the world.
Dr. Njoo: With respect to the amendment regarding the land conveyances, Canada goes over and above the International Health Regulations in terms of operators and land conveyances.
Senator Cordy: How do we know it is working well? You said there is not 100 per cent compliance, but is there a way to determine who is and is not complying? Do we have a system of spot checks? I know the penalties are quite high.
Mr. Brodie: It is difficult to say. If we do not get advance notice and the traveller arrives, the customs officer is responsible for doing a visual screen. If the officer does not notice that the person is ill, and we could go back to the TB case, that would be the situation, because the man in that case was asymptomatic. He did not appear ill. The person would have passed through customs. If the person eventually becomes ill and winds up in a hospital in a particular province or city, there is not a good feedback system for us to recognize that we have missed someone. We are in the process of setting up a database that will capture much of this information. We are hoping that we can assess the compliance rate and then take appropriate action.
Dr. Njoo: To be perfectly honest, the quarantine program is part of an overall integrated system in Canada. It is an essential first line of defence. I will be honest: We do not expect that it will capture every case of disease. Part of the integrated system in Canada is public care and the health care system.
One of challenges we have — and I am a fairly young physician — is that some of the even younger physicians, as part of their training, may not even think of globalization in a world where travel is common and diseases can spread quickly. It is also part of our job to educate young physicians. When they see someone in their practice and they diagnose a certain disease, they should take a careful travel history. The same is true of an outpatient in an emergency room; the doctor should not assume that the person was in that locale all day; indeed, the person may have been in another part of the world. The quarantine program is part of an important system, but other parts need to be integrated as well.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: You are saying that the law applies to international travel. However, when Dr. Ron St. John testified before us in March 2002, he said that the provinces wanted to know whether the Quarantine Act also applied to them.
For instance, if someone coming from Afghanistan arrives in Canada through Toronto and continues on to Montreal. He becomes sick during the Toronto-Montreal flight. When he arrives in Montreal, there is no one to take care of him because he arrived on an international flight.
Earlier, the provinces had asked to be covered by the legislation. Did you discuss any solutions to this problem or is it being solved?
Dr. Njoo: It is being discussed at present. The current legislation only applies to international borders. The issue of travel between provinces and territories is still being debated.
Senator Pépin: Of course, the Quarantine Act spells out obligations and responsibilities for travellers and transporters. Since the act was adopted in 2005, has some kind of mechanism been devised to ensure that Canadians can fulfill their legal responsibilities by declaring cases of illness? Are travellers being educated in any way so that they know that it is something that they have to declare?
Dr. Njoo: We are presently developing an education program for the public in general. We are discussing with our colleagues in other agencies about ways to change the customs declaration card. The card could include a question such as: "Are you suffering from an infectious disease?'' It would be important to do this.
Senator Pépin: This was discussed when Bill C-12 was studies in 2005. At present, I hope that we will quickly find a solution.
Dr. Njoo: I will discuss it with my colleagues.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Thank you for being here. I am not well prepared, but I have gone through Bill C-42. Let me just clarify, is it this bill or section 34 that adds land travel? I cannot find the words.
John Cuningham, Senior Counsel, Public Health Agency of Canada: Just to clarify, there is the existing section 34 in the current act. That section 34 is not in force. That particular section refers simply to "a conveyance that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo; . . . "Conveyance'' is a defined term and will include land, marine and air.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: In the previous bill, did it just say air and marine?
Mr. Cuningham: The bill introduced to the House of Commons applied initially to water conveyances and operators of the following conveyances; a watercraft or aircraft used in the business of carrying persons or cargo and any prescribed conveyance. Under the bill, the initial focus was on air and marine but land could have been prescribed subsequently if, in dues course, it was felt to be necessary and useful.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Did it say that in the bill?
Mr. Cuningham: In the course of discussions in the House of Commons, the committee voted on amendments to the bill and those amendments bring back the wording before the Senate. It should say, "This section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances:'' The words "watercraft'' and "aircraft'' have been taken out, and what is before the Senate at this stage, is simply a bill that refers to "conveyance,'' just as in section 34 of the act. In a sense, "land'' was in before, it was taken out, as introduced in the House, and it has been put back in in the current version of the bill before the Senate.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: How will all persons affected by this bill know it includes the three forms of transportation?
Mr. Cuningham: There are a few avenues that I will let my colleagues speak to, but from a legal perspective, what we do know is that "conveyance'' being a defined term covering all of those types of transportation was in the act as it was passed in May 2005. It has been on the books; it has not been in force.
As far as I understand feedback, whether positive or negative, from operators involved in the land conveyance industry, I do not believe there has been much received by the government or bureaucracy, but perhaps I can let Mr. Brodie speak to that.
Mr. Brodie: Should this bill be given Royal Assent, we have a package of materials ready to send out to all of the conveyance operators. Aside from that, we will have face-to-face discussions with the land conveyance industry in the next couple of days, depending on when the bill receives Royal Assent. Perhaps, we will have a meeting with them to ensure that they understand their obligations under Bill C-42. We will be sending out materials to the major associations: the Canadian Bus Association, Motor Coach Canada, and the American Bus Association. Of course, many tour buses come up from the United States to Canada and we will be talking to all of those groups to ensure that they understand the new obligations.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I like things to be clear. Was there any consideration given to putting in "of carrying persons or cargo by land, sea or air?'' Was that discussed? I guess it is clear, "conveyance'' but it might not be clear to our average truck driver or bus driver.
Mr. Brodie: If you look at the definition in the act itself, it defines a conveyance. The definition includes watercraft and aircraft.
Mr. Cuningham: It is in section 2, the interpretation section. In the English version it is "conveyance'' in French it would be "véhicule.''
The Chairman: That is not in Bill C-42.
Mr. Cuningham: It is not, but I can read it into the record. It means a watercraft, aircraft, train, motor vehicle, trailer or other means of transportation including a cargo container that arrives in Canada or is in the process of departing from Canada. It covers all those means of transportation in the definition.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That is in the old bill.
Mr. Cuningham: It is in the act.
The Chairman: This is an amendment to that act.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is there a definition of "cargo?''
Mr. Brodie: No.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I wondered about animals, but, of course, it would be clear that it does not apply to animals.
What does "cargo'' encompass? If you did not have any further information, could "cargo'' mean animals?
Mr. Brodie: First, "cargo'' is not defined. The Health of Animals Act applies to animals. Where we may have a difference of interpretation is with the word "vector,'' which is an animal or an insect that may be a carrier of disease. That is the reason the word "cargo'' is used instead. If there is a vector in a cargo container, for example a mosquito or a rat, it is a potential risk to public health. Did that answer your question?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You said this bill received general support when we were talking about working with local public health authorities in the provinces and territories. Does "general support'' mean unanimous support of the provinces? Under the record of consultations, it says "general support.''
Mr. Brodie: I think there was fairly broad consensus among the provinces that this bill should be supported. This is Bill C-12, of course. We did consult with the public health authorities in each province. I guess it is fair to say there were no major objections to the bill and any amendments went forward in Bill C-12.
I think one can say there is support. We did not ask for a vote and the provincial authorities did not present any major problems with the bill.
Senator Fairbairn: I was looking at your speech, Mr. Njoo. On page 9, you talk about the protection measures that will be ensured to help safeguard people from the import of communicable diseases. Obviously, the impetus that we would want to have the changes you are talking about would go back to SARS and the concerns that that left in the minds of travelling Canadians.
You also said that there would be an information bulletin that will be circulated to industry that will include a list of signs and symptoms.
Can you tell us, leaving SARS aside, about the most regular difficulties in terms of different health issues that are found when people are returning from their travels on trains, planes and cars?
We hear that you want to have information out so people can see what may likely be on the list when people are looking for illnesses. What are the current illnesses that are of most concern?
Dr. Njoo: In a general sense, we are concerned about infectious diseases, those which are spread through the air. Diseases that are widely known in the media are ones such as pandemic influenza, tuberculosis and other highly contagious diseases such as measles.
Other diseases of worldwide importance, such as HIV/AIDS, are not of much concern because the manner of transmission is different from being airborne. We are most concerned about diseases in which, let us say a fellow passenger on an airplane or boat may be unaware and expose others involuntarily by breathing the same air.
Senator Fairbairn: Of the communicable diseases, is measles the main disease, even over chicken pox?
Dr. Njoo: It is just an example. We can go disease by disease. Tuberculosis and pandemic influenza are of great importance. I mentioned measles because in Canada, in the western hemisphere, we are close to elimination. Because of that, a single case of measles is important.
We had an incident a few weeks ago of an imported case of measles from a traveller to Canada. We had to deal with that a certain way. Because of the Quarantine Act and the coming into force of the new International Health Regulations, we had the necessary authorities to act in a certain way. We were supported by international authorities in terms of the proactive approach that Canada took in dealing with that situation.
Senator Fairbairn: Can you say where the measles came from?
Dr. Njoo: I think it was in the papers. It was a group of students from Japan. There is a large measles outbreak in Japan but I think it is dying down. They have their own issues in terms of having an under-immunized population.
A group of Japanese students came to Canada and one member of the group was diagnosed with measles. The rest of the students were tested for their immunity to measles and one third was found to be non-immune, so they were at risk of possibly picking up the measles as well.
We dealt with them in terms of public health measures here in Canada. We also undertook certain measures under the Quarantine Act when they were planning to leave Canada.
Senator Fairbairn: Is the value of the new bill that it will become at being able to identify diseases?
Dr. Njoo: Yes. There are certain new powers in the bill. We can divert a conveyance. We can also designate any area as a quarantine zone. In a sense, if there was a large-scale event involving a number of passengers, we could take over a facility, a school or gym, and put those people into it to appropriately diagnose them and do medical follow-up. As well, there would be no exposure to the rest of the Canadian population.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for your explanations. I was looking at section 71, which we are amending a little bit. We are adding parts and taking parts out of section 34. It is quite similar to Bill C-12, the act that was introduced in 2005. How many people have actually been charged under this act?
Mr. Brodie: I am not aware of anyone who has been charged. That is not really what we are about. If someone is ill, it is important to isolate that person from others. This is not like the Criminal Code where we throw the book at them because they are sick. There are penalties for those who might be repeat offenders, so to speak. It is very rare, I think, that we would actually charge someone.
Dr. Njoo mentioned a gentleman from the United States. That might be the first time someone is charged, if he is charged.
Senator Callbeck: Is there a good follow-up system here for repeat offenders, for people that cannot be bothered to report these things?
Mr. Brodie: As I mentioned, we are in the process of creating a database that will track all of the interventions made under the act. If there are repeat offenders, they will show up in this database. Again, most people are responsible enough in that they do not want to become a threat to other people.
Senator Callbeck: Who takes the action, if a person is a repeat offender?
Mr. Brodie: The RCMP would investigate the circumstances of the case.
Dr. Njoo: I think we are talking about a unique circumstance. It is a different situation where someone may be ill but unaware of the infectious disease. It is different when a person travels here to find out that he or she is ill. The well- documented case of the individual from the United States indicates that the man knew he had tuberculosis and wilfully evaded the authorities to try to make his way back to the United States through a convoluted route. That is a prime example of someone to whom the Quarantine Act would apply.
The Chairman: Maybe he should go on the no-fly list.
I wish to thank our witnesses. We will go through this clause by clause, if you are ready for that, honourable senators.
Next is clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that I report this bill to the Senate at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The Subcommittee on Population Health is supposed to be meeting, but I need to point out that at 5:15 the bells will start ringing for a vote in the Senate at 5:30. It is another one of those amendments to Bill C-288.
The other thing I want to point out is that we are meeting tomorrow at 10:45. I did not anticipate this until suddenly, Bill C-14 was thrust into my hands. This bill is an Act to amend the Citizenship Act and it has to do with adoption. It, like the bill we just dealt with, appears to be non-contentious — although I cannot be sure about that. The thought is that it would be nice to get this one under our belt before the session ends. We meet tomorrow at 10:45, when we will have witnesses from the department. It should not take longer than 30 or 40 minutes. This meeting took 40 minutes.
Unless there is anything else, I will adjourn the meeting. It is up to Senator Keon whether we will try to meet for the next 15 minutes.
The committee adjourned.