Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

The Chair: Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner, from the Liberal Party, is Mr. Cotler.

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be giving over my time to Ms. May to ask the questions.

The Chair: Okay, Ms. May, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Cotler.

First of all, thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Your evidence is very helpful.

Do any of you see anything in Bill C-54 as currently drafted to deal with the circumstance that Christine Russell described in which her victim impact statement was changed?

I don’t see anything here in Bill C-54 that would change that process or protect victims from having that occur to their statements.

Mike McCormack: Could I answer that?

I think the overarching principle of the bill, in the introduction of the bill, sets forth the premise or the principle that victims’ rights and the public’s right to public safety should take precedence over any part of this bill or issue. It speaks to that directly, that the victims do have a larger role.

As a mission statement or a statement of facts, that definitely speaks to that.

Elizabeth May: I guess it’s my law school background. I look at the bill and I know that the Supreme Court of Canada has already said that the paramount concern is public safety, and still that happened to Christine. So I’m just looking at ways we could improve the bill, based on your evidence, and that seems to me to be a hole.

I wonder if any of you or all of you want to comment on the testimony of Sue O’Sullivan as federal ombudsman for victims’ rights. She spelled out a number of things. Frankly, until she listed them—and I look to my colleagues in the Conservative party as well—on reading the bill, I had thought those things were there. But I went back and looked, and she’s right. There’s nothing in the bill right now that says victims should be advised of the forensic facility location, that victims should be advised in advance of movements, that victims should be given advance information on release. You were here in the room when she testified.

Do you have any comment on whether you would support the amendments that Sue O’Sullivan suggested to improve Bill C-54?

Christine Russell: I am just starting to go through this process. I’m in Ontario, and I have been advised, notified by mail, when there are going to be appearances and where this person is, etc. I don’t know if that’s consistent across this country. I don’t believe that it is, so far, and I think it is important to include that kind of information.

Mike McCormack: Yes, definitely, and again, I’m reading the excerpts of the bill on ensuring that victims are notified upon request when the accused is discharged, and—this one I think is a very important one—allowing non-communication orders between the accused and the victim, and ensuring that the safety of victims be considered when decisions are being made about an accused person.

I think they are all relevant points.

Elizabeth May: I’ll state right now for the chair that I’m concerned. I want to be able to present amendments that would bring forward Sue O’Sullivan’s amendments, but I was told the deadline for my amendments was a few days ago. I don’t know how I am going to be able to bring them forward, so I’m looking to government members who perhaps can figure out a way to do that.

The last thing I want to ask is kind of hypothetical, because the witnesses who made the point earlier aren’t here to help explain their point. I’m referring to Bernd Walter’s and Richard Schneider’s testimony.

Let me just try this with you, Mr. McCormack. Obviously, if somebody has committed a murder, it’s very unlikely that they would throw themselves into the criminal system as opposed to the NCR system, or that a lawyer would advise that. But wouldn’t you agree with me that for a lesser crime—not lesser in the sense necessarily of trauma; I’m not diminishing the nature of a crime—for a sexual assault, scary assaults of all kinds, where the sentence in criminal justice might end up being less than three years, and the offender looks at the risk on the NCR system…?

I think that’s what I understood the other witnesses to be explaining, that you might end up having a lawyer say that your chances may be better to roll the dice and go into the criminal justice system, and then the offender is released without control, without their medications, and so on.

I wonder if you would see that as being a risk at all?

Mike McCormack: Again, I’ll go back to my original point. I don’t see it as a risk.

In seeing the system and what we’re talking about, I don’t know too many people who would throw up their hands and say “put me in a federal or provincial institution”, and that it’s a great place to be and they’re going to get better treatment than they would in a hospital.

Again, quite frankly, counsel has a fiduciary duty where there is a mental health issue to bring it forward, so I think counsel would be in breach of the fiduciary duties to their clients. I can’t see that happening.

When you’re talking about the stigma of being designated a high-risk offender, well, in Mr. Kachkar’s case, for instance, it was undisputed that he murdered Ryan Russell, so what’s the difference whether…? Is it, “Well, I don’t want to be called a high-risk offender, but I’d rather be called a murderer”…?

Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, I actually don’t think that any of the other witnesses, and I can go back over the committee Hansard—

Mike McCormack: Sure—

Elizabeth May: —used the term “stigma”. I think what they were referring to was a question of public safety and whether there was a risk that there would be people who would not go into the mental health stream, given the extended period of time here.

There’s one last quick thing, Mr. Chair, if I have time.

Would you agree with the federal ombudsman on victims’ rights, Sue O’Sullivan, that we need to focus—as well as on changes to the NCR system—on prevention? Really, for public safety, that’s a key piece, because obviously Mr. Kachkar wasn’t in the NCR system. He wasn’t known to the system.

Mike McCormack: Well, again, I think that’s something that came up as a constant theme. Prevention is something that we deal with. That’s why, when there are conditions in the criminal system, there are conditions put on somebody who’s being released into the community, conditions to not go near what the triggers are for their violent behaviour, whether that’s alcohol, drugs, or children, whatever it is.

That’s why it’s important that this legislation speak to this, to where there are certain conditions not to go near the victims. That’s our interest in law enforcement. We don’t want to have people reoffend. We don’t want to be dealing with offenders and we don’t want to be dealing with victims. I think this legislation speaks to that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and those answers.

The Chair: I call this meeting back to order.

I want to thank everyone for being here. First of all, let me thank the officials from the Department of Justice, who are here with us to answer any questions we have along the way.

As the committee knows, we passed a motion previously that during clause-by-clause consideration, at the relevant time, amendments that have been filed by the clerk by the time prescribed can be spoken to by the member who moved them. That’s why we’ve invited Madam May to the table. She has provided amendments, and I will call on her to speak to her amendments at the time.

We normally spend only a few minutes each introducing our amendments, then we have debate, and then we vote on them.

Ms. May can move her motions forward, but she is not a voting member of the committee.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, did you just say that I’m allowed to move my amendments?

The Chair: They’re considered to have been moved.

Elizabeth May: Okay, so they’re deemed moved, but I don’t get to move them.

The Chair: No, but I’m going to give you a minute or two to speak to them.

Elizabeth May: Thank you.

If someone asks a question on them, am I allowed to answer questions on them?

The Chair: If someone directs a question to you, I will allow that to happen.

Elizabeth May: Thank you.

The Chair: As amendment Liberal-1 fails, is also applies to Liberal-14. Instead of our voting on it, Liberal-14 will be defeated also.

Now we’ll move to private member amendment 1, and it has been presented by Madam May.

I’ll give you a couple of minutes to introduce your amendment.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think they’ve used the term “PV” here for Parti vert. So it’s actually not in the name of a private member. It’s actually here as Green Party amendment 1.

As you see, it is on clause 9, which is amending section 672.54. You can follow it on page 4, at lines 35 to 40.

I’m proposing this amendment based on testimony that was received by the committee from the Canadian Bar Association to reinstate the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement that has been used in not criminally responsible cases in the past.

I just want to cite this from the Canadian Bar Association evidence, at page 5:

Currently, the Court or Review Board must discharge absolutely any accused found not criminally responsible, unless they pose a significant threat to the safety of the public…. In making this decision, the Court or Review Board must consider the need to protect the public from dangerous persons,

—we certainly want to do that—

the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and other needs of the accused. Where an accused does pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Court or Review Board must select the “least onerous and least restrictive” form of disposition….

Now that Bill C-54 makes it very clear and codifies what’s already the law under the Supreme Court of Canada—that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration—I’m putting forward this amendment to say that certainly the balancing is very strongly in favour of the paramount consideration being public safety. The least onerous and restrictive qualification is now balanced against that paramountcy of public safety and security.

That provision, as the Canadian Bar Association recommends, can be reintroduced into the legislation very simply—through the mechanism of my Green Party amendment 1.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I’m going to rule on this….

Oh, sorry; you have a point of order.

Blaine Calkins: Chair, I just want some clarification from you, or from the clerk, through you.

My understanding, based on what you had mentioned earlier, was that independent members were welcome to sit at the committee to introduce their amendments. I would like some clarification on what “PV” means, because Ms. May is claiming it means Parti vert, which is the Green Party, which does not have official party status.

But I’m not trying to make that point. The point I’m making is technical in nature.

To go back, if that’s the case, then we actually have an issue here. If the Green Party doesn’t actually have official party status, then technically they cannot be making amendments at this particular committee, whereas private members actually can. So I would ask for clarification, through you, Mr. Chair, on whether or not this amendment is in order.

The Chair: First of all, I will rule on the amendment, whether it’s in order or not.

Just so members know, and it was news to me also, “PV” is an internal piece that our bureaucracy uses to identify the party. I also, in considering any non-official party…so the Bloc, they’re independents. We have other independent members.

So PV is an internal piece that they’ve used on here. I would like to have seen…or my recommendation to them is that in future it should be “IND”—

Elizabeth May: No, I’m not an independent. I represent the Green Party. All the House of Commons documentation makes it clear.

The Chair: Ms. May, at this committee you are an independent member of Parliament.

Elizabeth May: No, I’m not.

The Chair: You can call yourself green, blue, yellow, I don’t care, but what happens is that you’re here as an independent member. You’ve put amendments—

Elizabeth May: Then I’ll have to leave.

The Chair: —to this bill.

To your point, the motion that we had states:

the Chair may call upon the member

—not the party, but the member—

who filed the proposed amendment to offer brief remarks in support of it.

That’s why I called on the member, on Madam May, to make brief remarks to her piece.

Now, to your second point, I am making a ruling on PV-1. I’m going to call them “PV” because that’s the way they are now, and that’s the way they will be for the rest of the evening. In future, they may change them to independents, I don’t know; that’s not my doing.

The goal of Bill C-54 in clause 9 aims to remove from the Criminal Code the concept of a disposition that is “the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused” person.

The goal of the proposed amendment PV-1 is to bring that concept back, which is against the principle of the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766 that:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to revert to what was in the parent act, which is contrary to the principle of Bill C-54, and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling will apply to amendments NDP-2, Liberal-3, PV-12, NDP-11, PV-13, NDP-12, and Liberal-22.

Does anybody need that repeated?

Are you challenging the chair, Mr. Cotler?

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Yes.

The Chair: There has been a motion to challenge the chair on that ruling. There is no debate.

You are voting in favour of sustaining the chair’s ruling. Am I not correct?

An hon. member: And overturning the Supreme Court verdict too.

The Chair: All those in favour of sustaining the chair’s ruling? All those opposed?

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

The Chair: The chair is sustained, so those are out. NDP-2 is out.

Shall clause 9 carry?

(Clause 9 agreed to)

The Chair: That’s carried. There was a new clause 9.1—it was amendment Liberal-2—but it has been withdrawn, so that’s all that matters.

Liberal-3 was consequential to amendment PV-1, which I just ruled on, so it is out of order. Let’s keep going here.

(On clause 10)

The Chair: On clause 10, we have amendment PV-2.

Ms. May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not to reopen a difficult point, but I do think members need to look at the seating chart when they get back to their desks in the House, and they will find that the Green Party is acknowledged as the party I represent here in the House of Commons. It’s not an error that clerks in every committee in which I have presented amendments, at the invitation of committees—not at my request but at the invitation of committees—have designated them with PV, for Parti vert.

This amendment, Parti vert-2, is an amendment to clause 10, replacing line 45 on page 4. What this is looking at is a recommendation that the committee previously heard from the Canadian Forensic Mental Health Network to remove the somewhat vague and arbitrary definition of “significant threat” and to replace it with the definition that was articulated in the Supreme Court in the McLachlin Winko v. B.C. decision.

I’ve duplicated it with some small drafting differences, but I think this committee is very familiar with the Winko case. So that line would now read that a threat to the safety of the “public means a real and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and that results from conduct that is criminal in nature”.

That takes you to the top of page 5. You start at page 4, and then we’re at the top of page 5 with that replaced wording. Again, it’s to clarify and avoid vagueness. I think it will certainly help the court in the future, in dealing with this legislation, to tie it to existing jurisprudence.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Ms. May.

Mr. Goguen, on PV-2.

Robert Goguen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We’re not prepared to support this motion submitted by the independent member. The motion would delete the reference to the fact that the risk to the public safety need not be violent in nature. Clarifying this element is an important proposal of the bill. The same can be said for specific considerations to the risk to victims, witnesses, and young persons.

Further, the motion introduces notions of “substantial risk” and “serious” harm. This would create confusion, as similar words are used in the test for the high-risk designation. The threshold in the regular disposition-making disposition provisions is intended to be lower than the risk threshold in the high-risk designation.

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to make committee members aware that if amendment PV-2 fails, it will affect amendments NDP-3, PV-11 and NDP-10.

Monsieur Mai.

Hoang Mai: You said that, if amendment PV-2 fails, amendment NDP-3 would fail as well. You have made a decision that has prevented us from discussing the amendments we wanted to make. The Canadian Bar Association and the Quebec Bar have provided us with a lot of legal information. The way in which the bill has been drafted poses a number of problems, including some related to the charter, and they may well come up. There are also court decisions. Ms. May mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Winko, which sets out certain criteria. That is the reason for our proposal, which is very similar to Ms. May’s. We want the clause to say “serious risk” rather than “risk” and we want the words “but not necessarily violent” to be removed.

We have listened to Parliamentary Secretary Goguen’s remarks, but we still feel that the amendment is reasonable. In our opinion, this is a simple matter of considering the legal questions raised by the witnesses. We want this bill to be properly amended so that it will meet a test under the charter. For us, the amendment is important and we are hoping for support from Mr. Goguen and the Conservatives. But it does not look like we will get it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cotler, did you want to speak to PV-2?

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Real and substantial is indeed a helpful addition to ensure the concern for public safety is well-founded. We’re not quarrelling with that particular criteria. One might otherwise wonder how exactly public safety is threatened by non-violent behaviour such that it would be justified to limit the freedoms of a person who has not been convicted of a crime.

That is why I welcome this amendment. I just want to add, parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that during the testimony of the various groups that made this recommendation, when I asked them if they were consulted with respect to this legislation, they answered no. Maybe if they had been consulted, we would not be in a position of having to move an amendment, which the government itself would have appreciated to begin with.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

All those in favour of PV-2?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we’re on to PV-4.

Madam May, go ahead.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On a parenthetical note, wouldn’t it be fun if I could vote and then you’d have to break every tie?

In any case, moving on to PV-4, I think it’s very clear that as a matter of statutory interpretation, lists are difficult. Lists can be viewed later on by a court as suggesting an exclusivity because certain elements are listed and others are left out.

In this case, what I’m proposing in PV-4 is that we delete, in clause 12, proposed paragraphs (a) through (e) under proposed subsection 672.64(2), which are the specifics to try, I suppose, to set out for a court what all relevant evidence would be.

My position on this is that a court will know what “all relevant evidence” is, and by listing, we might accidentally leave out other factors that I think even Conservative members of this committee would want the court to consider, such as the concerns of victims, which aren’t part of this list.

They cannot suggest here that there might be mitigating factors. There might be other evidence that would be open to a court if it merely said “all relevant evidence”, but by listing (a) through (e), we have suggested and prejudged for a court what’s relevant. It could give rise to an appeal because the court might be seen to have gone beyond what was an exclusive list for consideration when, in fact, the term “all relevant evidence” is all one needs to ensure that the judiciary can, in the light of all the other sections of the act, make the determination of which accused is a high-risk accused.

In other words, we shouldn’t put forward a list that could be seen later as exclusive of other factors.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that.

Monsieur Goguen, go ahead.

Robert Goguen: We disagree.

The Chair: You disagree.

Robert Goguen: We can’t support the motion. Clause 12 currently provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to provide greater guidance to both the prosecutor making the application and the court hearing the matter on the kind of evidence that should be considered. The list of factors should therefore be retained.

The Chair: Mr. Albas, go ahead.

Dan Albas: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that point, if you read it, “the court shall consider all relevant evidence, including” and then it gives (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) as some of them. Again, “including” means including those but not exclusive of. I would point out that “all relevant evidence” is included among the included.

The Chair: Mr. Seeback, go ahead.

Kyle Seeback: I would agree with that. For Ms. May’s position to make any sense, the proposed subsection would have to say that “courts shall include the following evidence”, and list it. Then her argument would make sense. But when you make a non-exhaustive list—her point actually—no judge would look at that and say, “Because it’s not enumerated here, I can’t consider it”.

Elizabeth May: Actually, there are a lot of court cases like that where, if you want to be clear, you can say, “including, but not limited to”. There have been cases where this kind of language has been seen as exclusive. I don’t think that’s the intent of the drafters. I’ll stop here because I know I’m intruding on my time, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Anything further on PV-4?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: PV-5, Madam May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is also, of course, within clause 12. We’re now looking at proposed paragraph 672.64(3)(a).

As Bill C-54 is now written, the person who has been designated as a high-risk accused under this provision would be allowed to be discharged from the hospital and absent from the hospital for any purpose relating to treatment or for other medical reasons at the discretion of the person who is in charge of the hospital.

My amendment inserts “the Review Board”, which is in the position to know all of the relevant evidence about the high-risk accused, including conditions around the original determination of high risk, as well as whether this would be appropriate. I’ve also inserted the concept of that being “based on all available evidence”. Given the concerns about high-risk accused and their movements, which the Conservative government has expressed in putting this bill forward, it seems to me this is much too important a decision for it to be delegated to the person in charge of the hospital as opposed to being delegated to the most qualified agency, which is the review board.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

I’m going to make a ruling on this PV amendment. Clause 12 of Bill C-54 does not provide any powers to a review board. The proposed amendment aims to provide specific powers to the review board that are not envisioned in the bill. We refer to page 766 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, edition two.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-54 and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling applies to amendments PV-6 and NDP-14. So that amendment is inadmissible. It’s out of order.

There’s nobody challenging the chair, so we’re moving on.

Amendment PV-6, as just read, is therefore inadmissible as well. NDP-6 is also inadmissible due to PV-5 being inadmissible.

The Chair: We’re on to clause 15.

There are a number of amendments on clause 15 and they are all in order.

We’ll start with PV-7 with Ms. May

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

PV-7, if you go to line 24 of clause 15, is a very simple change. It reverts to 12 months instead of 36 months in which the review board can extend the time for holding a hearing in respect of a high-risk accused, to a maximum of 12 months.

The Chair: Monsieur Goguen on PV-7.

Robert Goguen: We are unable to support the amendment, Mr. Chair.

The default review period in the Criminal Code is 12 months. The clause this motion seeks to amend is intended to require the accused’s consent for an extension of the 12-month review period. As an accused’s consent is not required to maintain the review period at 12 months, the amendment is superfluous and should not be supported.

The Chair: Anybody else on PV-7?

Mr. Albas.

Dan Albas: I would point out that in earlier testimony today the witnesses confirmed that right now it does allow for 24 months, subject to the review board’s decision on that.

Mr. Chair, this would actually be a step back. Rather than offering more flexibility to review boards, this would be actually taking it away.

The Chair: Anything further to PV-7?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Next is amendment PV-8.

Madam May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This goes to the question of who may revoke a high-risk accused designation.

For this amendment I drew on the testimony of the Community Legal Assistance Society. Their point, which is found in page 3 of their brief, is that the review board should also have the power to remove the high-risk assessment designation without referring the matter back to the court, and that the review board is better placed to perform the complicated risk assessments. Sending the accused back to court when an expert panel has already reviewed the evidence and determined that the individual is no longer a high-risk accused serves no useful purpose, especially given that a right of full appeal to the highest court in each province exists, should the prosecutor or the hospital disagree with the review board’s determination.

This is an amendment to reduce repetition and delay that go beyond the bill’s purpose of ensuring that the safety of the public is the paramount concern.


The Chair: We have a point of order, Madam May.

Kyle Seeback: I think you’re talking about amendment PV-9. You’re supposed to be talking to amendment PV-8.

The Chair: Yes. We’re on amendment PV-8, Madam.

Elizabeth May: I’m sorry, Mr. Seeback. I thought I was on PV-9 already.

The Chair: No; I’m sorry.

Elizabeth May: Amendment PV-8 is to the same effect as amendment PV-7—I’ll go back to it—which was to reduce the amount of time that appears in the bill from 36 months to 12 months.

I apologize for getting ahead of myself. I’ll try to make it really interesting when we get to amendment PV-9 next time.

The Chair: That sounds good.

Monsieur Goguen, do you wish to speak to PV-8?

Robert Goguen: We’d be opposing this motion, Mr. Chair, for the same reasons as given for the two previous motions, amendments NDP-7 and PV-7.

The Chair: Is there anything further on amendment PV-8?

Yes, Mr. Seeback.

Kyle Seeback: I want to point out that with all of the amendments, when we look at the proposed sections or subsections they’re trying to amend, these are optional things for a board, not mandatory.

We had a witness suggest today that these things would mandatorily kick in for 36 months. They don’t. They only kick in when the accused’s condition is not likely to improve and the detention remains necessary for the period of extension. The bill is giving more flexibility to the board to make those kinds of determinations, and these amendments seek to give less.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-8?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We are on amendment PV-9, Madam May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Assuming you all have a very good memory, I won’t repeat what I said earlier about amendment PV-9, except to add these other points.

At the point at which a determination has been made by the review board that, based on all the available evidence, the high-risk accused no longer meets that definition and that the person is in fact no longer considered high-risk accused, the current Bill C-54 drafting would refer the formerly high-risk accused person back to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

There is an interesting legal point here, because there will be no criminal charges active at that point. There will not be any criminal court seized of the matter, whereas the review board has the expertise, has just reviewed the complex information, and has made a determination, as the act requires, based on all the available information involving expert assessments, that it is satisfied that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused, whether the high-risk accused “will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person”.

At that point, it is both, as I mentioned earlier, an unnecessary expense and unnecessary cost of the court’s time, unnecessarily repetitious. In fact it asks the court to be seized of something for which there are no current criminal charges. I therefore strongly recommend that we revert, as I propose in amendment PV-9, to the review board itself making the determination and not referring it further to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. May.

I’m going to rule on this one.

On clause 16, Bill C-54 provides that the review board in some cases refer the finding for review to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction. The goal of the proposed amendment PV-9 is to give full power to the review board.

Then, referring to page 766 again, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment PV-9 attempts to give full power to the review board in cases where the power to review belongs to a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, and is therefore inadmissible. This ruling also applies to amendment PV-10.

Is anybody challenging the chair on that? Seeing none, that’s looked after, then.

Amendment PV-10 is inadmissible based on the ruling I just made.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I was hoping we would be done by eight o’clock and we came very close. It’s 8:13 p.m.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, for the record, I want to thank you for being so welcoming. I appreciate it very much.

The Chair: My pleasure.