Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights

Issue 3 - Evidence, March 3, 2008

OTTAWA, Monday, March 3, 2008

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which was referred Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to others Acts, met this day at 4:58 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and the deputy chair. I must therefore preside over the election of an acting chair for the committee's consideration of Bill C-42. I am now ready to receive a motion to that effect.

Senator Cowan: I move that Senator Munson be acting chair of the committee.

Ms. Richardson: Is the committee agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Jim Munson (Acting Chair) in the chair.

The Acting Chair: I am pleased to introduce the witnesses from Canadian Heritage who are here to discuss Bill C-42, to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The witnesses are Lyn Elliot Sherwood, Executive Director, Heritage Group, Canadian Heritage; Patrick O'Reilly, Director, Implementation Strategy, Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Heritage Group; and Rina Pantalony, Legal Counsel, Canadian Heritage.

The primary purpose of Bill C-42 is to create a new national museum for human rights. It is to be called the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. As provided by clause 1 through clause 4 of the bill, it will be established as an independent Crown corporation through amendments to the Museums Act.

The remaining clauses of the bill amend acts that are related to the proper functioning of a Crown corporation. For example, the bill amends the Financial Administration Act to provide for federal funding, as well as both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to exclude museum material from their jurisdiction. The bill adds the Canadian Museum for Human Rights to the list of federal entities that receive funding for property taxes owed to municipalities due to ownership of real property.

Other acts related to the payment of employees of Crown corporations and their pensions are also amended.

We have three witnesses before us. Who would like to begin?

Lyn Elliot Sherwood, Executive Director, Heritage Group, Canadian Heritage: You should all have a copy of my presentation. I will go through this quickly. I believe the chair has summarized the bill. I will be repeating some of that, and, at the chair's discretion, I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have with the assistance of my colleagues.

In April, 2007, the government announced it had reached an agreement to establish the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, CMHR, as a national museum. That means that it would be established as a federal Crown corporation under the Museums Act. That agreement included commitments of financial and other contributions from the Province of Manitoba, the City of Winnipeg, Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights Inc. and Forks Renewal Corporation, FRC, totalling $165 million toward the construction and fit-up of the museum, as well as for the land at The Forks in Winnipeg as a building site. The federal government will contribute $100 million toward the construction and fit-up of the museum and provide ongoing operating support.

The principles of this agreement during negotiation were very important to us. We wanted it to be clear that this was to be a federal undertaking on the same basis as all other national museums. Therefore, its first principle is that its creation would be subject to parliamentary approval. This, of course, is why we are all gathered here today. The second principle is that, as a Crown corporation, it would have the same status and governance as the four existing national museums. I do want to stress that, although there are extremely generous contributions from the other partners, this is a federal undertaking and not a public-private partnership.

The future board of trustees of this Crown corporation will be responsible for decisions on the building design, the programming vision and the content for the museum. It may draw on work that has been done previously by the foundation, but it is not bound in any way by that work. We have also established as a principle that the budget to build and fit-up the museum, including the development of the exhibitions, will be capped at $265 million, the money on the table from all the parties.

Bill C-42 amends the 1990 Museums Act under which the existing national museums are established as Crown corporations. That act has three substantive components: first, the definitions and preamble; second, a component in which each existing national museum is individually established; and, third, a component on governance applicable to all national museums.

Bill C-42 amends all three areas of the 1990 act. Elements that are not amended would apply to the CMHR as they apply to all the others. For example, Bill C-42 makes no reference to the appointment of a board of trustees because provisions dealing with the appointments of boards of trustees are already contained in the 1990 Museums Act. As the chair has noted there are consequential amendments to other acts as a result of the creation of this new Crown corporation.

I will now go into more detail. The change to the first component, definitions and preamble, is proposed to modernize the definition of museum material to include documentary material regardless of medium or form. That reflects the technological changes that have taken place since the 1990 act was adopted.

The proposed new section of the bill that establishes the CMHR contains provisions that create a name for the new Crown corporation and a proposed new section that defines its intended purpose:

The purpose of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is to explore the subject of human rights, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, in order to enhance the public's understanding of human rights, to promote respect for others and to encourage reflection and dialogue.

These provisions also define the museum's capacity and powers. Those powers are modelled closely on the existing powers of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, also set out in this section of the Museums Act.

Although the primary purpose of the new museum is not to amass a collection, it does have the power to build a collection over time. That power is laid out in the act. It is not starting with a collection. It will need to establish partnerships with other institutions as it develops its exhibits. However, over time, it may acquire objects in pursuit of its purpose.

Finally, with respect to the components dealing with governance, there is a change to the existing act in that the first director of this new museum would be appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the minister. In the 1990 act, directors of museums are appointed by the boards of museums with the approval of the Governor-in-Council. This is a pragmatic measure designed to ensure a future board is immediately supported by the appropriate staff. It is the responsibility of the director of the museum to staff the other positions in the museum. The bill provides that subsequent appointments will be made in the normal fashion by the board with the approval of the Governor-in-Council. The board may choose, or not, to reappoint the first director.

The bill also binds the museum to the terms of agreements reached on its behalf prior to its creation as a Crown corporation; therefore, prior to the passage of this bill. For example, the land transfer agreement reached with the City of Winnipeg and The Forks Renewal Corporation, which allows for the land to pass directly to the museum. Therefore, it will benefit from that agreement.

One of the elements, for example, in that agreement is a requirement that the museum, or Canada, be part of the committee with The Forks Renewal Corporation to address matters of common interest, such as snow and garbage removal. Therefore, it is a way of negotiating the agreements and having them transfer to the new organization.

There is a series of consequential amendments to identify the CMHR as a federal entity to which a series of other federal acts apply, including the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act — as a Crown corporation the museum will be subject Part X of the Financial Administration Act — the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, the Privacy Act, the Public Sector Compensation Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act. The bill provides that its provisions will come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council.

I would be pleased to answer any questions members of the committee may have.

Senator Cowan: On the page of your presentation entitled ``Background,'' it talks about $165 million having come from various sources other than the federal government and $100 million coming from the federal government. On the next page you say that the budget to build and fit up the museum, including exhibition development, would be capped at $265 million.

These projects have a tendency to run over the expected costs. Who will pick up the tab if the costs exceed $265 million?

Ms. Sherwood: It is the responsibility of the board to develop an approach to the building plan that includes a generous contingency provision designed to stay within the budget. A number of steps can be taken in planning for a construction project with detailed design, development and costing prior to the letting of construction contracts that enable a board to accurately assess whether the project can come in on budget.

Senator Cowan: Does the $265 million include a contingency provision?

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, it does.

Senator Cowan: This is not one of those projects where the federal government is left to pick up anything over and above the $165 million that is contributed by other parties, is it?

Ms. Sherwood: The total budget is $265 million. You are putting your finger on a very real risk in the current environment, which is the impact of inflation on construction budgets. That has been factored into planning and is one of the reasons for the urgency of this bill because at the moment the purchasing power of that $265 million is being eroded at the rate of between $800,000 and $1.5 million per month.

Senator Cowan: I am not being critical of this project. However, someone has to hold it at the end of the day.

Ms. Sherwood: The board of trustees will be accountable for bringing this project in on budget and making decisions with respect to the building design and the contingency fund set aside that allow it to bring the project in on budget.

Senator Cowan: Is the current expectation that, if this were approved in the near future, the $265 million would be sufficient including a generous contingency provision?

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, it includes a 15 per cent contingency provision.

Senator Oliver: How much will the annual ongoing costs be for maintaining this museum?

Ms. Sherwood: The operating plan that was developed by Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights Inc. will need to be reviewed and confirmed by the incoming board, but that is the basis on which we have done the planning for this museum. The annual operating costs for this museum would be approximately $22 million.

Senator Oliver: Does that include all staffing and yearly maintenance?

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, it does.

Senator Oliver: Will this museum be staffed similarly to other national museums, such as the Museum of Civilization here in Ottawa?

Ms. Sherwood: It will be a separate employer falling under the Public Sector Compensation Act.

Senator Oliver: How many employees are budgeted for Winnipeg?

Ms. Sherwood: The business plan, which we are currently working on, budgets for 143 full-time employees, FTEs. That includes visitor services, research, educational programs and all other elements in addition to management.

Senator Oliver: You said that the board of directors is provided for in the 1990 statute. However, does the government have a list of people to be on the board, and will they be representative of all parts of Canada and all the peoples of Canada — Aboriginal people, visible minorities and women? Will there be diversity on the board?

Ms. Sherwood: I am not in a position to comment on the recommendations of the government to the Governor-in-Council about the board. However, I expect the representation that you mentioned will be taken into account. The board has not yet been named and cannot be named until this bill comes into force.

Senator Oliver: Is there a first director in mind?

Ms. Sherwood: A search process has been initiated.

Senator Oliver: Who is conducting that search?

Ms. Sherwood: We are currently discussing the exact approach to that search with the Privy Council Office.

Senator Oliver: Therefore, there is no search currently happening.

Ms. Sherwood: We have a number of names. We have to agree on the process for the search with the Privy Council Office. We cannot hire a director until the bill is passed.

Senator Stratton: What is the anticipated number for the board of directors?

Ms. Sherwood: The Museums Act calls for a chairman, a vice-chairman and nine other members, for a total of eleven.

Senator Poy: How long would the term of the first director be, and is it renewable?

Ms. Sherwood: The term is five years, and the board may renew.

Senator Poy: What is the maximum number of terms?

Ms. Sherwood: There is no maximum number of terms for directors specified under the Museums Act. The only difference in this is that the first appointment is on the recommendation of the minister rather than the board. Beyond that, it unfolds exactly as the others unfold.

Senator Poy: With respect to the $265 million, your presentation says ``including exhibition development.'' That can be an ongoing process. How do you cap that?

Ms. Sherwood: That is intended to be the exhibit development necessary to open a museum that has exhibits. The ongoing operating budget for the museum will need to accommodate the cost of refreshing those exhibits over time. This is the initial exhibit development for the opening of the museum.

Senator Poy: This is really the rooms for the exhibition rather than the programs?

Ms. Sherwood: This is the exhibit content; the cost of opening the doors of the museum, not as an empty shell of a building but as a functioning institution ready to welcome visitors.

Senator Poy: Thereafter, will further exhibitions be based on the amount of operating costs?

Ms. Sherwood: That is right.

Senator Spivak: There has been much discussion about museums within and museums outside of the National Capital Region. Are there criteria that you used to determine that this should be outside the capital region, and are these criteria to be used across the board?

Ms. Sherwood: Section 25 of the Museums Act does provide that national museums may be anywhere in Canada. In the case of this particular project, it, in fact, started as a private initiative, a private vision, and a great deal of money was raised toward the construction of the museum.

When they approached government for assistance with the challenge of sustaining the museum — not simply building it — it was clear that the fundraising had been focused on the venue at The Forks in Winnipeg. Therefore, when the government agreed to make this a national museum, as the only condition under which it would provide ongoing operating funding, it accepted The Forks as the venue for the museum.

Senator Spivak: I am very supportive. Since I come from Winnipeg, I know much about the history of this museum, but that is not the point of my question. Will you apply the same criteria for other museums, for example, photography? Will you say that if a region of the country raises a large sum of money, you will put a museum there? What will be the rationale for other museums? I have not quite got the specifics.

Ms. Sherwood: I understand that the question is about what criteria will apply should the government wish to entertain future requests for national museums. I am not in a position to answer that. This was an extraordinary circumstance with an extraordinary expression of public interest in terms of the amount of money that had been raised and a very long process to get there. I am not aware that this is the beginning of a sequence. This is the first national museum in more than 40 years.

Senator Spivak: I absolutely agree that this is an extraordinary project. It has galvanized the people of Winnipeg. Have you received any other requests for a museum outside of Ottawa?

Ms. Sherwood: A number of people have approached us since the announcement last April. Most of the museums that approached the government were under the impression that this agreement was that the government would provide operating funding to a non-federal entity. There was an attitude of ``Where do I sign up, and can we have the same treatment?''

People then understood that this was not a question of a grant or contribution to an external entity.

Senator Spivak: Did you get many requests to have the museum of photography outside of the national region? Was there a big groundswell?

Ms. Sherwood: I am sorry. Are you referring to the Portrait Gallery of Canada?

Senator Spivak: Yes, I am; sorry.

Ms. Sherwood: We have two different scenarios. In the case of the CMHR, there was a private initiative in which enough money had been raised to construct a building, but the question was the ongoing operation.

In the case of the Portrait Gallery of Canada, that is the national portrait collection. The ongoing operating budget for that collection is provided through the appropriations for Library and Archives Canada. However, there is no venue in which to display the collection. The government is currently undergoing a request for proposals to seek financial partners to construct a venue in which to display the collection.

These two scenarios start at completely different points in the process.

Senator Johnson: I know you will do well by our wonderful new museum in Winnipeg and will meet all the requirements and use purchasing power right away so that no more time goes by. All my friends will come to visit it.

I have a question on proposed new section 15.3(2) of the bill, which imposes a restriction on the way the museum deals with property. It reads that the museum:

. . . may not deal with property otherwise than in accordance with the terms, if any, on which it was acquired or is held.

Such a practice would seem de rigueur. What is purpose of articulating this here in this way, and will it affect the museum's creative control over its collection?

Ms. Sherwood: It reinforces that if a museum accepts a donation of an object on condition that that object be perpetually displayed, it must abide by those conditions. It constrains the freedom to deal with objects as the museum sees fit that is contained in proposed new section 15.3(1)(a) through 15.3(1)(d) around the management and disposal of the collection.

Senator Johnson: Proposed new section 15.3 identifies the variety of powers the museum can exercise, in terms of the sale, exchange, donation, destruction or disposal of the museum material in its collection. Is there a danger that that restriction in proposed new section 15.3(2) could ever undermine the management of the museum's collection?

Ms. Sherwood: It is up to any museum, when it accepts or acquires objects, to be conscious of any restrictions on its freedom that it may be accepting as part of that acquisition. You are raising a broader question of the management of museums. More generally, museums have become quite reluctant to accept restrictions such as objects must always be shown, must always be shown together or can never be moved anywhere. Most museums these days will refuse to accept objects with those conditions.

Senator Johnson: I find it particularly relevant because this is a museum that is not starting with anything in terms of a collection; it will be interesting to watch how this evolves.

Ms. Sherwood: One of the board's early responsibilities and tasks will need to be the development of an acquisitions policy for the museum that will guide its decisions with respect to donations.

Senator Johnson: Could you comment further on the acquisitions? Do you have any comments on how the board will go about that?

Ms. Sherwood: There are a number of models. Every professionally run museum has an acquisitions policy that defines the types of material that it wishes or is willing to acquire, how it plans to manage the relationships — for example, with donors — what types of conditions it will or will not accept and who in the organization must approve acquisitions. That may vary for inexpensive objects that may be delegated to the curatorial level and for very expensive objects that perhaps the board of trustees has to approve. In addition, that would normally be tied to the other policies around the care and conservation of the objects and the overall management of the collection.

Senator Johnson: It is a very exciting opportunity for the future of this museum, especially in regard to human rights. The exploration of human rights is not an exclusive reference to Canada. There is huge potential for international partnerships. Could you comment on some relevant strategies that might be in place to advance such partnerships, or are there any at this time?

Ms. Sherwood: Again, I need to make the distinction between plans that may have been made by Friends of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights Inc. — or commonly referred to as Friends — when this was a private initiative and the complete discretion of the future board of trustees.

Senator Johnson: Forgive me, because I am one of the Friends.

Ms. Sherwood: There is a challenge in that transition. However, there are certainly other museums around the world where there could be fruitful partnerships.

Senator Johnson: Could you name one?

Ms. Sherwood: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum might be one — I have just come back from Washington, so these may all be American examples — the National Museum of the American Indian and the new African-American exhibition are others. Those are three Smithsonian institutions where there might be some interest. There could also be partnerships with an emerging number of museums that are exploring issues such as tolerance and other aspects of rights around the world.

Museums that do not focus on that topic specifically may, nevertheless, have exhibitions that are relevant. The National Museum of Australia, in Canberra, for example, with the work it has been doing on Aboriginal rights and reconciliation in Australia might be an appropriate international partner. Those relationships will need to be built.

Senator Cowan: Is all of the $165 million in hand?

Ms. Sherwood: Approximately 50 per cent of it will have been placed into escrow as of April 1. The remaining 50 per cent is scheduled for three payments from the Friends Foundation on April 1, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Senator Cowan: It is not a question of whether it will be available; it is committed.

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, that is correct.

Senator Cowan: I thought there was some fundraising happening.

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, the Friends are committing to raise $105 million privately. As of this date, they have raised $88 million of that $105 million. They have that final push to make.

Senator Cowan: That is very good. Is the $22-million operating cost the net of whatever proceeds would be generated by the museum? I assume that there would be presumably a museum shop and other friends of the museum and so on. Is this a net figure or a gross figure?

Ms. Sherwood: That is the gross figure. The forecasted revenues will need to be evaluated by the future board of trustees, and they will need to develop their revenue projections.

Senator Cowan: What does the business plan call for?

Ms. Sherwood: The business plan at this point is based on a somewhat different set of assumptions around the existence of endowments. The Friend's business plan called for $6 million in revenue.

Senator Cowan: Would that be netted against the $22 million?

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, it would.

Senator Cowan: To go back to your answers to Senator Oliver about the first director, you said you were discussing the way in which the first director would be selected.

Ms. Sherwood: There are different processes that could be used in relation to the first director. This has actually happened extremely quickly. We reached the final, legally binding agreement with the partners a week before the bill was tabled in the House of Commons. We are scrambling.

Senator Cowan: I do not expect you to say that it will be X firm rather than Y firm carrying out the search, but will there be a public search?

Ms. Sherwood: There will have to be some form of public advertisement of the availability of this position.

Senator Oliver: More than an advertisement is needed. There needs to be a search.

Ms. Sherwood: There has been a previous process that was contracted by the Friends to review a great number of candidates for this position, and we actually have access to the results of that information. We do believe that the job description will be slightly different because this is now a national museum, and there are some additional requirements. I do not mean to be cagey, but one of the issues will be how much we can draw on that previous material or whether we are starting from scratch.

Senator Cowan: There will be a new search.

Ms. Sherwood: There will have to be a search.

Senator Cowan: It will not be restricted to people who already applied to Friends.

Ms. Sherwood: That is right.

Senator Cowan: There will be a public search. What will be the possible mechanism? Would one be to contract with a search firm?

Ms. Sherwood: Yes, that would be one way.

Senator Cowan: What other methods would there be?

Ms. Sherwood: One method would be an open call, and the other would be to start with a short list with the high flyers and go quickly from there.

Senator Cowan: How would it be a public search if you start with a short list of high flyers?

Ms. Sherwood: That is the issue.

Senator Cowan: That is not a public search.

Senator Oliver: No, it is not. That is a concern.

Ms. Sherwood: There are processes available to post potential appointments for comment. As I say, I am uncomfortable here because we have not completed these discussions with the Privy Council Office.

Senator Cowan: Surely you need to have a public search for something such as this, do you not? How could it be done any other way?

Ms. Sherwood: There have been a number of opportunities for people to express their interests.

Senator Cowan: You have just said the job description is maybe slightly different. I do not understand.

Ms. Sherwood: I am painting myself into a corner on a discussion that has not yet been completed, and I do not have all of the knowledge of the options for these search processes. I do not want to mislead you by saying that these are the two options.

Senator Cowan: Will parliamentarians have an opportunity to hear of the process before it is settled, and if so, how?

Ms. Sherwood: I am sorry; I just do not have the knowledge to answer that particular issue.

Senator Cowan: Would you undertake to ask that question and obtain an answer for the committee?

Ms. Sherwood: I would be happy to get back to you on that, unless either of my colleagues feels compelled to leap in with better information than I have.

Rina Pantalony, Legal Counsel, Canadian Heritage: I do not know if I can leap in with better information. I feel we need to take that under advisement.

Senator Cowan: As long as we can get an undertaking and have follow-up with the clerk, that would be fine.

The Acting Chair: Since this is a Crown corporation, I assume that our two official languages will be required at this new museum.

Ms. Sherwood: The preamble to the Museums Act, which will cover this museum as well, is very clear on the requirement for national museums to provide services in both official languages.

Senator Johnson: The beauty of this, of course, is that it is looking right over St. Boniface, on the river between Winnipeg and St. Boniface, which is a very French-speaking part of the city.

The Acting Chair: The misconception is sometimes out there, maybe in the media, that it is a public-private partnership. However, it is really a public position right now, is it not?

Ms. Sherwood: It is a federal Crown corporation with a board that is appointed by the Governor-in-Council, and all of the protections that exist in terms of the various pieces of federal legislation that apply to such an entity, such as the Financial Administration Act. The staff are public servants for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is absolutely on the same status as any of the existing national museums. It happens to have an extraordinary contribution being made toward the building project, but that does not in any way change its status.

The Acting Chair: Would federal employees be free to apply for positions at this new museum?

Ms. Sherwood: It is a separate employer. Canadian Heritage has an arrangement whereby employees of national museums, Parks Canada and others are eligible to apply for competitions within government. There is certainly no problem for a federal public servant moving over in terms of portability of pension. That would be available to any employee of the federal public service.

Senator Johnson: Could you answer a question about the first director being recommended by the Minister of Heritage rather than the board? On the four other museums in Canada, the board of trustees makes the recommendation for the director. Here, the minister appoints both the board as well as the director. Why is there this differentiation?

Ms. Sherwood: In this case, it is really a pragmatic approach. The 1990s act, which establishes the four existing museums as Crown corporations, came into being at a time when the institutions existed. They had facilities and staff. When the boards were created, there was actually an infrastructure to support them. In the case of this institution, there is, at this point, no infrastructure to support the new board. It is really a question of having the two come into being simultaneously.

Senator Johnson: The control is with the government and not the Friends or the Asper Foundation.

Ms. Sherwood: Absolutely, that is correct.

The Acting Chair: If there are no further questions, I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us. I would also like to thank all senators for being here — perhaps because I am the interim chair, there are so many of you here; it is amazing support. I also remind that it is the senators who have been designated to sit on this committee who will vote clause by clause. The witnesses are free to remain, I believe, if they wish.

Ms. Sherwood: We would love to stay, if you would let us.

The Acting Chair: There may be a question on some of the clauses.

Honourable senators, shall we move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-42, to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Shall I report the bill to the Senate?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Acting Chair: Carried. That is how efficient this meeting is. Thank you.

The committee adjourned.