THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 26, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:33 a.m., in camera and in public, to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m the chair of the committee and I’m from Newfoundland and Labrador. I will ask my colleagues if they would introduce themselves first, starting on my right.
Senator Christmas: Senator Dan Christmas, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest, Gulf region, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, Manitoba.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Patrick Brazeau, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga, from Ontario.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger, Alberta.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt, Nunavik.
Senator Munson: Senator Munson, Canada.
The Chair: Broad strokes this morning, Jim.
I welcome everybody here. We are here to discuss Bill S-203. It’s been quite the discussion for the past number of months, and we are between third base and home, hopefully. We are going to entertain a motion from Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: I would like to move that we proceed to consideration of the bill clause by clause, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Contraminded? Motion carried.
Has everybody received a copy of the amendments put forward by Senator Sinclair?
Just recently we received an explanation of the proposed amendments by Senator Sinclair. Has everybody received that in the last little while?
Senator Plett: The amendments we got five minutes ago?
The Chair: Yes, just this morning.
Senator Plett: How come we didn’t get them earlier than five minutes ago? It’s quite difficult to do a lot of studying on something that we get when we sit down at the table.
The Chair: How come we didn’t get them? Maybe, Senator Sinclair, you want to answer that.
Senator Sinclair: The draft amendments you had for some time. The document that has been prepared and circulated — I think we are talking about the explanation document from the law clerk? That was prepared and sent to us yesterday or the day before.
Oh, that’s the one that came to us in June. The document simply explains in short form the impact of the amendment. It’s not a terribly difficult document to read, and it has a brief explanation of each of the amendments.
The Chair: To be clear, we have had the amendments for quite some time. The document that Senator Sinclair is talking about now, we received this morning.
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
The Chair: I want to make sure everybody is clear.
Before we go to clause by clause, I would like to put a few things on the record. I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure at all times that we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. Therefore, before we take up the amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
One small point: If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against a clause as standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have a consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. One of the amendments that Senator Sinclair is proposing may have an effect on other parts. I want to make sure everybody is aware of that. Otherwise it will be difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of the matter, and order and make a ruling.
As always, the committee is the ultimate master of its own business, within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained. As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend upon your cooperation, and I ask you all to consider other senators and to keep remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on the above before we start?
Senator Sinclair: Just a little guidance, Mr. Chairman. Because of the length of some of these proposed amendments, do you wish me to read the ones I am proposing in their entirety? I have circulated drafts of them, but I can read them in their entirety if you wish.
The Chair: Yes, I think it would be best to do that to make sure everything is on record from voice to print.
Senator Sinclair: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any other questions on the process?
Is it agreed that committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains a short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Sinclair: I have amendments, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Sinclair: There are two amendments. For ease of reference, I want to draw to the attention of senators that a document has been circulated that has the wording of the changes in them. They are marked at the top with numbers MS1A, MS1B, MS1C. In reference to the changes, I will take through them.
You should have a new document which is called “New MS1A.” Previous MS1A, the one circulated in June, had a typographical error in it. It removed the word “or” and replaced it with the word “and,” but it shouldn’t have done that. We have gone back to the original wording. We have just removed the clause from the June draft.
I’m looking at the new MS1A. I will now read the proposed amendment:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2,
(a) on page 1,
(i) by replacing line 11 with the following:
(2) “Subject to subsections (3) and (3.1), everyone”, and
(b) on page 2, by replacing line 5 with the following:
“state of distress; or
(c) is authorized to keep a cetacean in captivity in the best interests of the cetacean’s welfare pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by such other person in authority in the province as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
(3.1) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who is conducting scientific research pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of a province or by such other person or authority in the province as may be specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The purpose of this proposed amendment is to allow for exceptions to the Criminal Code prohibition which is contained in the bill in order to allow those cetaceans that are in captivity for purposes of research, and those that are in because they have been taken into possession for their own welfare, who are in distress, to continue to be kept without it being an offence.
If you look at clause 2 in the bill, you can see that there is an exception in the bill already for those that have cetaceans in their possession at the time that the bill is passed. So there is a grandfather clause, but it also creates exceptions for purposes of research and for purposes of animal welfare or well-being.
That’s the purpose of that first amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Senator Sinclair has another amendment to clause 2.
Senator Sinclair: Do you want me to deal with that?
The Chair: I think we should discuss MS1A first. Are there any comments or questions?
Senator Plett: I’m not sure whether Senator Sinclair went further than he intended to — maybe he didn’t.
I think proposed paragraph (c) of subclause (2) is what Senator Sinclair was talking about. Am I correct, Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: Talking about which, sorry?
Senator Plett: Paragraph (c) is what you were talking about here, correct? That states in part, “is authorized to keep a cetacean in captivity in the best interest of a cetacean’s welfare?”
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Senator Plett: In that particular paragraph, chair, I think we are creating a new licensing regime, namely permitting the keeping of cetaceans in captivity, pursuant to a licence issued by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There seems to be no apparent authority to compel any province to establish such a regime, and certainly there is no precedent for such a regime. No witnesses in our lengthy study suggested a licensing regime would be appropriate or even desirable.
I would like to ask whether Senator Sinclair intends that a new licence would be applied for and issued for each cetacean. That’s not really clear. And was any consideration given as to how the proposed licensing is contemplated to work within the existing framework of legislation and animal welfare, conservation and regulation?
I would suggest that this amendment directly contradicts current subsection 2(a) which creates an offence for anyone who “owns, has custody of or controls a cetacean that is kept in captivity.” Where does “best interest” come from? I have a question whether it meets the best interest test as it would clearly differ from one province to the next, which could preclude a harmonized and clear application of the law.
I don’t know whether Senator Sinclair can answer those questions, but I would suggest that there are some definite problems with the implementation of that.
Senator Sinclair: Any difficulty I have in answering the questions will be because I lost track of them as we were going along. If I forget one, senator, please jump back to it for me.
First of all, you’re correct, it does suggest the creation of provincial regimes for regulating captivity, and there are precedents clearly around the world for regulations to be established. Canada does not have that now for cetaceans. However, there are regulations in place for the captivity of other wild animals, so it’s not like there has been no experience in Canada with regard to regulations regarding the possession of bison, for example, and other wild animals that are currently being held in land closures. But the issue of how the regulations will be created will be dependent upon the provinces and each province will be entitled to establish their regulatory regime as they see fit.
There is a split in jurisdiction here with the issue of animals in captivity within provincial jurisdiction generally. This is creating a federal prohibition because of the reference to the Criminal Code, but allowing the provinces to continue to do whatever it is that they want to do or are doing. I suggest that there will in fact be some experience the provinces can draw upon.
The definition of “best interests” is determined well by case law. I think that it is for the provinces themselves to determine. I don’t think it’s necessary within the legislation to determine or try to define what that means.
The utilization of the term is not contained in this particular amendment. It’s contained in other provisions within the proposed amendments. So I think that we can take it that the provinces will be able to manage the suggestion of the creation of a regulatory scheme.
If they do not create a regulatory scheme, the prohibition against captivity will continue in those provinces. Not all provinces may want to have or allow captivity of cetaceans within their jurisdictions. That’s for them to decide.
Senator Plett: That in fact is what is already being done. Ontario as a province has the very strictest regulations in our country. They have extremely strict regulations for the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. I’m wondering why we are bothering with this if we are already saying that if the provinces don’t want to adhere to this, they won’t have to. Right now, the provinces are taking care of this. In Ontario, as I said, they have the strictest regulations in the entire country.
I want to repeat, there wasn’t one single witness on either side of this issue in the entire length of our hearings that suggested that a regime like this would be appropriate or even desirable. So, I think Senator Sinclair is suggesting we do something that is already being done.
The Chair: Senator Gold.
Senator Gold: Senator Sinclair has answered the questions far better than I could. I would simply add that I think one of the salutary consequences of this amendment is to make sure that the province can continue to have the regulatory authority and make the appropriate judgments vis-à-vis the welfare of cetaceans in places that currently do hold them in captivity, notably in Marineland as we heard through much testimony regarding the quality of care that cetaceans receive there. This is a way to ensure that the passage of this bill does not prejudice the ability of the provinces and the companies that they regulate to continue to do their job according to their jurisdiction.
The Chair: Senator Forest?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: That is exactly what I wanted to mention. It already exists. Some witnesses in Ontario told us. There is already regulation that is not necessarily the same as in British Columbia. This simply confirms the authority of provinces to legislate in this specific area. I think that is as it should be.
[English]
Senator McInnis: I don’t want to be repetitive, but the constitutional consideration would be that the provinces and territories have the primary responsibility for protecting the welfare of animals in captivity. That’s why they have strict legislation in Ontario. The Vancouver parks authority put regulations in place. They already have that authority to do it. So those two provinces have the two aquaria that have been spoken to a great deal and they already have it in place. Why would we put legislation in place that is already there?
There is some concurrent legislation with respect to the cruelty of animals under the Criminal Code that is already there. So why now would we be putting further legislation in place? It’s not even an affirmation or confirmation. It’s there now. They can do it and they have done it.
Senator Plett: I am little discouraged that again we need to bring in one of the organizations that will be very negatively impacted by this, and try to make comments that are less than complimentary to them. Since we last heard witnesses, there were five charges by OSPCA against Marineland. Each and every one of those charges has been dropped. We are taking the testimony of people who had a very personal interest in doing something, and now we are using that in our argument.
I’m not going to go any further with Marineland.
I want to echo that I’m not sure why senators would want to draft a bill to repeat what we are already doing. It makes the Senate look very questionable if we are bringing legislation that basically says to the provinces, “We want you to you continue to do what you’re doing,” which is what this amendment is saying. I find it completely discouraging. We can come up with new legislation that is constitutional, fine. We have heard the government question this legislation, and so we’re bringing in legislation that Senator Sinclair has already said, “Yes, the provinces are doing it, and this will allow them to keep doing it.”
Senator Sinclair: I can assure you that I don’t want to look like a fool, but we have to remember that the purpose of the bill is to criminalize the captivity of these animals. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for exceptions to the criminalization of the captivity of these animals. So this amendment is intended to allow for exceptions that we heard were importantL: helping animals that are in distress and in need of help, and allowing for research to be done in accordance with regulations that are passed.
I think the amendment is a good amendment. I think the bill is a good bill. We need to try to meet the needs that have been raised with us over the course of our hearings. That’s what this amendment is about.
Senator Enverga: This is showing me we will be doing some duplication of laws. At the same time, we will be asking the provinces to do what they have been doing. I am repeating myself. However, I feel that this is a redundancy. As a senator, I don’t think we should be doing this.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I don’t understand my colleague Senator Plett’s disappointment. I don’t think anyone spoke about Marineland. We talked about a law in Ontario. I am sorry for Senator Plett.
The other element is that we are studying a new bill. This is not necessarily a repetition; we are specifying the provinces’ powers in this bill. The purpose is to clarify, in a legislative text, the powers of a Canadian law and of another law which is provincial. It’s not a repetition. The point is to state things clearly in a new bill. To me it is clear that this is not a repetition of the other laws that exist.
[English]
Senator Sinclair: Do you want me to deal with the next amendment or deal with this amendment first?Shall we vote on this amendment first?
The Chair: Yes.
Is there any more discussion on the first amendment moved by Senator Sinclair?
It is moved by Honourable Senator Sinclair that Bill S-203 be amended, and the amendment is on the record. Everybody is okay with that? Okay. We call this a new MS1A just to make sure that we’re totally clear.
Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I will ask for a voice vote.
Mireille La Forge, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Manning?
The Chair: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senateur Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: Yes.
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
Senator Sinclair, would you like to move on to MS1B?
Senator Sinclair: MS1B is a further amendment to clause 2 on page 2, senators. It essentially changes the offence provision.
I move that Bill S-203 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 20 to 26 with the following:
“an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $200,000.”.
Do you wish me to explain it?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Sinclair: The bill had a provision in it which created an indictable offence and a higher punitive provision. The purpose of this amendment is to render the offence a summary conviction matter, which is considered in law to be a lesser offence with lesser punitive sanctions applicable to it. In this case, the usual potential incarceration period is much less than an indictable offence would be, but it has increased the fine amount to $200,000 to indicate the significance of the penalty that the courts can impose.
Note that it’s not a minimum fine. It’s a maximum amount that can be fined. The fine will not exceed $200,000, so it could be less.
The Chair: Is there any comment on the amendment?
Senator Plett: I think this has all been decided, so I will be brief.
Regardless of the penalty, this amendment does not address the fundamental problem of this bill. It still criminalizes keeping cetaceans in human care and it still leaves legitimate scientists and animal welfare workers vulnerable to a criminal conviction and a criminal record.
Colleagues, we have seen again in the last week where whales are being killed in the St. Lawrence Seaway and other places. There are more whales being killed out in the wild because they have more problems than in captivity. This bill will restrict research. This bill will restrict us trying to prevent the extinction of whales because we will not be able to have them in captivity to do research, and we are struggling with whales becoming extinct.
We are saying that this is for the good of the whales and in the best interest of the whales. Clearly, changing this punishment to a $200,000 fine does not in any way deal with any of the problems of this bill, so again, I will be voting against it.
Senator Gold: I think that when we look at the amendments as a whole, they do address legitimate research needs, and they are very important research needs.
Senator Plett: Needs, not solutions.
Senator Gold: Respectfully, I think they provide solutions as well, Senator Plett.
Throughout the hearings, as the record will show, I was very concerned about the impact on research. That was one of my primary considerations and concerns as expressed in my questioning of witnesses. I think these amendments, not only the one we just passed but others that relate to the transfer of cetaceans and tissues, adequately addressed the concerns of the research community and will, therefore, allow us to continue to do the important work that we do to protect cetaceans both in the wild and in captivity.
Senator McInnis: We have to remember the evidence that we heard. These are the comments that I plucked out of some of the evidence that was given.
Under the Fisheries Act, it’s possible currently to restrict wild capture for experimental, scientific, educational or public display purposes. There has been a ban on all capture of killer whales — orcas — since 1975. There has also been a ban on captured belugas for export from Canada since 1992.
DFO has not issued a licence to authorize the capture of cetaceans for public display purposes since the early 1990s. Over the last 10 years, DFO issued only one licence authorizing the capture of live cetaceans for rehabilitative purposes.
I mean, that’s what is taking place. That’s the reality now. I don’t want to go back and repeat what we said earlier when we had the vote on the previous clause, but this stuff is already on the books. The laws are there and are being followed.
I was going to mention this, and Senator Plett did but I’ll say it again: We lost a dozen right whales in the St. Lawrence this year. There is where the effort should be put in how we rectify that situation, when there are allegedly only 450 left on the planet in our oceans. What are we doing about that? That’s the concern.
The federal government is already handling this, and they said that when they came before us. We heard the evidence that they are already in control of this, so I fail to see why we’re doing these amendments. Anyway, it is what it is.
Senator Sinclair: I understand the concern. It’s a repeat of a lot of things that have been said with regard to the bill throughout these proceedings. We need to keep in mind that the purpose of the bill, again, is to criminalize the conduct of those who do not obey the law as we are acknowledging it should be in this bill, and that is to take improperly those animals which they do not have permits to take.
Research will not be stopped. We just passed an amendment that allows research to be conducted. There is nothing here to criminalize the conduct of properly authorized researchers. There is nothing in the bill that is going to criminalize the conduct of people who are saving whales, protecting whales or taking them in for care, as long as they do so in a way that is made known to the authorities that are doing that.
The practice of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to not issue permits is one that will not be affected by this bill. What will change is that those who do take cetaceans without a permit now will be criminalized in that conduct. Before, the best that we could hope for was that they might be charged under the Fisheries Act.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Sinclair: Can we have the question please?
The Chair: Shall amendment MS1B carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I am going to do a roll call.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning?
The Chair: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: Yes.
The Chair: The amendment is carried. That concludes the amendments to clause 2.
I will ask now, shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I’m going to take a voice vote on that, because I think it’s clearly — if that’s okay with everybody? Okay.
Clause 2 has been carried, as amended.
Senator Plett: Sorry?
The Chair: Clause 2 has been carried, as amended.
Senator Plett: We are not having a voice vote?
The Chair: You want a voice vote?
Senator Plett: I would; it does not take a lot of time.
The Chair: That’s fine, we shall do it.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning?
The Chair: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: Abstentions, 1; yeas, 9; nays 5.
The Chair: Clause 2, as amended, carries.
Senator Munson: Sorry, chair. We didn’t hear what the recorded vote number was on the other two.
The Chair: Yes, sorry about that.
Senator Plett: Probably the same.
Senator Sinclair: The same.
The Chair: All the votes have been —
Senator Sinclair: Can we for the record agree it was the same?
Senator Plett: For the record, agreed that it carried.
The Chair: All the votes have been the same thus far, to make sure everybody is aware.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We’ll have a recorded vote.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning?
The Chair: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger?
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: Abstention, 1; yeas, 9; nays, 5.
The Chair: Clause 3 carries.
So that everyone is aware, this is real first clause by clause to do with a bill since Ms. La Forge became our clerk.
Senator Plett: And doing a wonderful job.
The Chair: Thank you for your patience.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Plett: No.
Senator Sinclair: I have an amendment.
The Chair: Go ahead, Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: I refer senators to my document MS2B. I’ll read the document to you.
I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
“export from Canada a living cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise, or sperm, a tissue culture or an embryo”.
This amendment would limit the proposed import- export prohibition under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to living cetaceans. It says “living or dead” in the bill. The words “or dead” have been removed because the reference in the bill to the tissue and sperm and embryo would cover the situation that the bill was intended to address.
Senators, the proposed amendment is really intended to keep the concern on living animals.
The Chair: Any comments?
Senator Gold: I want to remind senators that I think this is another example of an amendment that addresses the concerns of the research community, because we heard testimony to the effect that it is sometimes necessary to transport tissues of dead cetaceans across borders, international or otherwise, for the purposes of research into their conditions in the wild. This is an example of an amendment that would maintain our ability to do research for the benefit of cetaceans in the wild.
Senator Plett: Even though I don’t disagree with any part of what Senator Gold just said, it is adding an amendment to a bill that is entirely unnecessary. In that respect, I’ll vote against the amendment, not because I don’t necessarily disagree with a certain clause, but it’s a clause amending a bill that should never pass. For that reason, I will state my objection to it and vote against it.
Senator McInnis: The problem I have with the amendment is that it’s dealing with the wild animal and plant protection of fauna act that is under the auspices of the Minister of the Environment. With more than 80 countries, I think it is, that are tied into all of these agreements and under CITES, which handles all of these various trade agreements, it’s most inappropriate. In fact, the word that I got in doing a little research on this, and this is a quote from a person in environment, is that this is a clause that deals with WAPPRIITA, with regard to trade. That clause is not appropriate at all. It deals with trade and not the animal’s welfare, which is where it becomes problematic.
Obviously we’re a sovereign nation and we can pass the legislation we want. However, when you’re dealing with a number of countries and with trade, this should have been discussed. The minister most certainly should have had the opportunity to discuss it with his colleagues from other nations. The problem is the trade part of it. The other part would be fine.
We heard that when we asked the question of the environment people that came here. It’s a concern, and I don’t know why we would pass something that obviously will go to the Commons. It will be debated. The minister will then look at it and it will be a problem, I would suggest.
Senator Enverga: My only question here is that there are a lot of changes to the act here, something that has already been established. My concern is the fact that we need some more experts in order to do this, maybe even study this particular amendment and extend the whole thing. We would be doing a disservice to our experts and our scientists if we don’t talk to them and put it right into the bill. I don’t think it’s the right decision.
The Chair: Well, we discussed the bill over the last number of months, and we have people from all sides here. The amendments are coming forward based on people’s thought process in relation to what they heard. As somebody may say, “A hundred people in a room hear a speaker, and you get 100 different definitions of what the person said.” I guess it’s a collective agreement around the table on how we move forward.
Senator Enverga: But we will be changing a few things here that are more fundamental, and we would need more research, more witnesses. That’s what I’m worried about. That’s why I’m saying no. I think it’s improper for us even to consider the bill at this time.
Senator Sinclair: I appreciate the comments, senator, about the impact upon international trade, as well as the concern about whether others have views with regard to this. I don’t doubt for a moment that others will have views with regard to this that may not be the same as mine and others who support this bill.
Logically, this is an amendment to the bill, and this is part of the bill that follows upon the passage of the bill. If we are going to prohibit the taking of animals into captivity, then logically Canada should prohibit the exportation and the importation of those animals. So the question of whether or not that impacts upon international trade and is of concern to the minister will be a question the minister will consider when we’re finished with the bill and it goes to the house. They will address it there.
In terms of what it is that this bill is intended to do, it prohibits the taking of cetaceans into captivity and the importing and the exporting of them, so consequential amendments necessarily need to be made to other regulations and legislation that deal with the issue of those cetaceans that are subject to trade. So I think it’s logical for us to be dealing with this amendment in this way.
Senator Plett: I won’t debate any of what Senator Sinclair said about the amendment, but when he suggests that the people in the other place will deal with it when it gets there, we had people from the other place here opposing this legislation. We are ignoring their testimony because they did not agree with this legislation.
I have heard senators in this room, senators who are voting for this bill, saying, “Well, we can pass this bill because it will go over there, and it will never pass in the other place.” So, again, I just want to be on the record saying we are passing a bill that, first of all, isn’t necessary, is suspect and unconstitutional. If the people in the other place do their job properly, it will never pass over there. Again, we are doing ourselves a disservice.
Senator McInnis has made reference after reference where the laws are in place already. The Province of Ontario has the strictest regulations probably in the world, certainly in the country. We are saying that we are going to continue to let them do what they want to do, but let’s pass a bill.
I would suggest we go to the question and move forward to the next clause.
Senator Munson: I’m curious who you are talking about, senators on this committee saying it would never pass the other place. Whoever said that in testimony? You’re casting kind of a shadow on what we’re doing here. I would like to have a clarification of that.
The Chair: I’m not clarifying it.
Senator Munson: There you go.
The Chair: I’m getting back to the amendment. Are there any other questions on the amendment? Comments? Okay.
Senator Sinclair: Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that in keeping with your instruction at the beginning, there will be a consequential amendment to another provision that results from this amendment if it’s passed. I will identify that for you, if you wish, at this point in time.
Senator Plett: I say we should vote on this.
The Chair: Vote on this amendment for now, Senator Sinclair, and then we’ll go back.
Senator Sinclair: If this is passed, I will draw your attention to that amendment, then.
The Chair: Shall amendment MS2B carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We will proceed to a recorded vote, please.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga.
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold.
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis.
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: Yeas, 9; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Senator Plett: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, we will have a recorded vote.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning.
Senator Manning: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga.
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold.
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis.
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: Yeas, 9; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: Clause 4, as amended, has carried.
Moving to clause 5, Senator Sinclair?
Senator Sinclair: A consequential amendment flows from that. I would draw your attention to proposed amendment MS3B. I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended on page 3, by adding after line 9 the following:
“(1.1) The Minister may, on application and on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit, issue a permit authorizing the importation or exportation of a living cetacean, or sperm, a tissue culture or an embryo of a cetacean, if the importation or exportation is for the purpose of
(a) conducting scientific research; or
(b) keeping the cetacean in captivity if it is in the best interests of the cetacean’s welfare to do so.”.
This amendment flows from our consideration of clause 4. It allows for the minister to establish regulations with regard to the import and export of living cetaceans, sperm, tissue culture or embryo of a cetacean.
The Chair: Discussion on the proposed amendment?
Senator McInnis: For the record, I have trouble understanding how we can pass in the Senate, a place of sober second thought, enabling legislation to permit the federal minister to carry out an act when, in fact, he would have to negotiate with all the other countries with respect to trade. Why are we passing legislation that would do that?
I’m puzzled as to why we’re doing this, in the Senate, passing legislation to enable a minister in the House of Commons to do this. How is this possible? How can we be doing this?
We surely deserve answers. What are they?
The Chair: Does Senator Sinclair have an answer?
Senator Sinclair: We do it all the time because we pass legislation that initiates in the Senate and send it to the house. This is no different than any other piece of legislation that we pass that we send to the house for consideration.
This bill simply repeats and allows for the establishment of regulations by the minister. It’s permissive, not mandatory. We are not requiring the minister to establish regulations; we are permitting the minister to establish regulations.
As you, yourself, have pointed out, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now has regulations and policies that they follow with regard to the question of who can take orcas, who can take and be allowed to fish in the waters within the jurisdiction of Canada. There are regulations, laws and policies in place that the department follows, and we’re simply saying, “This is an area that we think you should also include in your jurisdiction.”
Senator McInnis: With respect, what I’m speaking to directly is the agreement that they have with numerous other nations — I think it’s 80-some odd — with respect to trade, so it’s not analogous to what we’re talking about with Fisheries and Oceans or anything. We are talking about CITES, an agreement with all the other nations with respect to trade. They have to be negotiated. One nation can’t unilaterally say, “Well, we’re going to do this,” without any negotiation whatsoever.
I realize that legislation can be passed. It’s in our domain in Canada — we can pass legislation here — but this is an international agreement. How does that square that we’re passing something for the minister when he himself would have to negotiate these things on an international basis? That’s the distinction I’m making.
Senator Sinclair: Again, keep in mind that it’s permissive legislation. It’s intended to allow the minister to do that. If he does not or chooses not to provide for regulations, then it’s entirely within the purview of the minister, according to this legislation, for him not to do that.
But if he chooses, because he has an agreement or has worked out an agreement with other jurisdictions as to what kind of trade will be in place or how that trade will be regulated in one jurisdiction and the other jurisdiction concurrently, this legislation will permit him to implement that agreement. So I think this is necessary.
Right now there is nothing other than the permission of the Government of Canada to allow people to import animals, cetaceans into Canada. We have heard that Marineland, for example, among others — I’m sure there are probably are other jurisdictions that have done so — with regard to other beings, other animals as well, regularly bring cetaceans in for their use from Russia and other jurisdictions. Now this is going to say that a minister should be putting regulations in place with regard to that.
The Chair: Senator Plett, you want to comment?
Senator Plett: I do want to comment very quickly.
First of all, I take strong exception to the last comment about Marineland again because they, in fact, are not doing what Senator Sinclair just said. We are not here now trying to debate whether institutions are doing a good job or not. We heard conflicting testimony on that. And to make disparaging comments against one organization here over another is entirely out of order, chair. I want to be on the record as having said that.
Secondly, Senator Sinclair is saying, “Let’s pass an amendment here allowing the minister to do whatever he wants to do.” Why do we need to have legislation for that? It makes no sense.
Let’s call the question, chair. We’re wasting time.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Following the senator’s question, we have to look at both the letter and the spirit of the text. It says “The minister may, on application and on such terms and conditions as the minister thinks fit, issue […]”. So the minister on application will not issue an import authorization that does not respect his country’s own laws, or the agreements our country has signed with other countries. We are not saying that the minister must do so, but that the minister may do so, while respecting the conditions he deems appropriate. In my opinion, this does not contravene the country’s laws, nor the international agreements we have signed.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Can I just respond quickly? I think I know where this bill and amendments are going. I wonder why the group that lobbied my friend Senator Willie Moore didn’t go to the Commons, the respective ministers here. Why didn’t they go to the Minister of Environment, saying, “Look, we would like to do this. Would you agree with the legislation? Is it possible to do it?” I wonder why that didn’t happen. Or was this more of a PR job? That’s the challenge that we all have to understand. This could have happened in — I shouldn’t say “legitimate” because what we’re doing, I guess, is legitimate. It’s possible to do it. But it’s not the proper form. It’s not the way to do it.
It should have been done by dealing with the respective departments that are here — Fisheries, Justice and Environment — but it wasn’t.
Anyway, let’s not rehash it. Just for the record, I think it’s wrong.
Senator Sinclair: I agree with Senator Plett. We should call the question. I just want the record to show that I am righteously indignant that we would be casting aspersions on people who have lobbied others within the Senate to promote the legislation just as those on the other side are not happy that people have cast aspersions upon other parties as well. We need to understand that that is part of the process that we engage in here.
I would like to ask that we move to the question.
Senator Plett: I don’t want to keep the conversation going, as I asked for the question to be called a minute ago.
But for Senator Sinclair to say he is righteously indignant about something, I think Marineland should be righteously indignant for them being mentioned again at this committee meeting and for us to pass judgment on one organization, when we have heard testimony on both sides of it. Is this bill here to deal with one organization or is this bill to deal with a problem across the country?
For someone with Senator Sinclair’s pedigree to suggest things like he just suggested and make comments like that, he would never have done that from the bench, and he shouldn’t do it here.
The Chair: We will get to the question.
Is it agreed to accept amendment MS3B?
Senator Plett: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Abstain.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Bovey?
Senator Bovey: Yes.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Brazeau?
Senator Brazeau: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Christmas?
Senator Christmas: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Dyck?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Enverga?
Senator Enverga: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: Yes.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Gold?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator McInnis?
Senator McInnis: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Munson?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
[Translation]
Ms. La Forge: Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
[English]
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: No.
Ms. La Forge: The Honourable Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. La Forge: Yeas, 9; nays, 5; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The motion has been adopted.
That motion basically gives us a new clause, clause 5. We don’t have to ask if we accept clause 5 now, because we basically did that with that motion. But because we have accepted a new clause, clause 5, we have to reconsider clause 4, which is amendment MS2A. I give the floor to Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: Do you want me to read it into the record?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Sinclair: MS2A is the consequential amendment because clause 5 has been adopted. The provision would read:
That Bill S-203 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing line 5 with the following:
“7.1 No person shall, except under and in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection 10(1.1), import into Canada or”.
That’s MS2A, which is in the material I provided to senators. It is a consequential amendment that flows from our adoption of new clause 5.
The Chair: Any other questions or comments? Okay.
I will ask if everyone agrees to take the vote on the previous motion and apply it to the motion being put forward now, or do we want a recorded vote again? All of the votes have been along the same lines.
Senator Plett: I am quite prepared, if everybody here agrees, that the clerk will record the vote to be what it has been each time. I am prepared to move this along. But I want it on record how the senators have voted on every vote, including right until the end.
The Chair: Is that fine with everybody?
Senator Sinclair: I’m the same.
The Chair: Okay, just in the interest of time.
Does any committee member have an issue with the process that we planned? Okay.
Shall clause 4, as amended, carry?
Senator Plett: No.
The Chair: We’ll apply the vote. Motion carried.
Senator Sinclair, we’re moving ahead to amendment MS3A, replacing clause 6.
Senator Sinclair: It’s a new clause 6. In consideration of the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Watt and that were raised by at least one of the witnesses — and maybe others, and Senator Plett also raised this as a concern in his submissions — I have drafted what is commonly referred to as a non-derogation clause. I move:
That Bill S-203 be amended, on page 3, by adding the following after line 9:
“Related provision
5 For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.
I would point out that the wording of this particular provision was developed with the assistance of the Law Clerk of the Senate. The intention is to ensure that indigenous peoples in Canada are aware that this bill is not intended to derogate from any rights that are constitutionally protected in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Chair: Thank you Senator Sinclair.
Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Enverga: We’re giving Aboriginal treaty rights the highest form of right there, so my question is: Will that allow Aboriginals to create their own, let’s say, water park for cetaceans?
Senator Sinclair: Their own which?
Senator Enverga: Their own cetacean park.
Senator Sinclair: If it’s part of their existing Aboriginal treaty rights now to do it, this will not take away from that right to do it.
Senator Enverga: So they will be able to make their own park, if they want to.
Senator Sinclair: This does not create any rights in addition to what they already have; it does not take away from those rights that they now have. So this does not create any additional rights.
Senator Enverga: But is it their right to create their own park for their economic needs?
Senator Sinclair: Perhaps. I don’t know. I haven’t seen any court cases that have ever said that.
Senator Enverga: That’s my question. Perhaps we are giving an exception to our Aboriginal friends. So I am wondering if it’s possible.
Senator Sinclair: This bill is not doing that. If it is done, it is done because section 35 exists.
The Chair: Basically, if they have a treaty now that allows them to do that, they can. If it’s not part of the treaty, they can’t. This doesn’t change that. Would that be so?
Senator Sinclair: This does not change the law.
Senator Enverga: So they could if they wanted to.
Senator Sinclair: I didn’t say that.
The Chair: If it already exists.
Senator Sinclair: I didn’t say that, and that’s not the case.
Senator Gold: The Constitution protects rights, and this simply acknowledges the rights, whatever they are, that the Constitution protects. It’s as simple as that. No new rights are granted here.
Senator Enverga: But they have the right.
Senator Gold: No. We don’t know the full extent of what those Aboriginal treaty rights are. Those are decisions by the courts, so we are not assuming any such right exists. This simply protects whatever rights do exist, including the rights — we had testimony to this effect — on the trade of narwhal tusks. Beyond that, courts will decide what they decide.
Senator Plett: I will be very brief. I certainly did raise this at committee. Senator Sinclair is quite correct. I stand by that. However, in light of the fact that this is an amendment to a bill that should never have passed, for that reason I have to vote against this as well and will do so.
The Chair: Okay.
Shall the new clause 6, MS3A, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to apply the previous votes on amendments to this one. With that, the motion is carried.
Senator Sinclair: Those complete my proposed amendments chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title carry?
Senator Plett: Point of order. There’s no clause 7 now? There is a new clause 6, but there is a clause 7 in the bill.
The Chair: Sorry. Go ahead.
Senator Plett: That’s fine. I don’t understand that, but it’s okay.
The Chair: There were four clauses. We added clauses 5 and 6. There is no clause 7.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Plett: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Once again, we’ll apply the vote on our previous motions to this motion. The motion is carried.
Shall the title carry?
Senator Plett: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Once again, we’ll apply the vote of other motions to this motion. Therefore, the motion is carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Senator Plett: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Once again, we will apply the vote of previous motions to this particular motion, which means that the motion is carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make technical, clerical and typographical changes and adjustments to the amendments adopted by the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: With that, colleagues, we have completed this meeting. Thank you for your patience and understanding over the past number of months. I understand the major disagreements on both sides of this particular issue. It has been a learning experience for me as chair, for sure, but I think we did our duty.
Senator Plett: Good job, chair.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)