FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

Á

1110

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mr. Scott Brison

The Chair

Mme Fry

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Á

1125

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Á

1130

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Bradshaw

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Raymonde Folco

M. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Cullen

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Cullen

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

The Chair

Á

1145

Ms. Picard

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Chair

Some hon. members

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 084

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Thank you very much. The fire alarm was rather unexpected, but it was good that our clerk had the foresight to book this room, in case we needed it. So we're gathered here.

    When we left off, I had just been asked for a roll-call vote by Mr. Loubier. We're on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-209. I don't see anybody asking for a debate, so I will go to clause 1. It is only a one-clause bill.

    (On clause 1--Credit for public transportation costs)

    (Clause 1 negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry? Do we need a roll-call vote on the title carrying, Mr. Loubier?

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ): Absolutely, Madam Chair. I want to see who has the courage of their own convictions, and who doesn't.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Epp, go ahead.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): This is an interesting situation here, because we just voted that clause 1 does not carry.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): This is an interesting situation here, because we just voted that clause 1 does not carry.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: The clerk went through this with me. If the bill had carried, I would report back normally. Because it is a private member's bill--and I stand to be corrected by the clerk--my understanding is that if there is a recommendation that the bill be not further proceeded with, with reasons, that gets reported back to the House. Either the bill gets reported back as passed, the bill gets reported back as amended, or the bill gets reported back with a recommendation that it is not to be proceeded with in the House, and there have to be some brief reasons with this. But I make a report to the House, because, on a private member's bill, we have a Standing Order that says either it's reported back in 60 days, or there is, I believe, a potential 30-day extension, with support in the House, and it's reported at the 90 days, or it's deemed to have been passed.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I didn't anticipate this outcome. I should have spoken before we voted on clause 1. Let all members, whether on the government side or not, give serious thought to the idea that a government-whipped vote by parliamentary members in the committee can kill a bill, whereas it is the tradition of the House that private members' business be open to a free vote in the House.

    The Chair: This is not a whipped vote. This is a private member's bill, and it is an independent vote. This is not whipped, this is not to be whipped. This is private members' business.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Chair, with all due respect, the member is out of order. We have voted on the proposed section. Any implication he is suggesting, I'm afraid, is of his own thought and not based on any fact.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I apologize for that. I just meant that we had the potential for that happening, because of the presumed control of the whip in the committee. I just think we would have been a lot better off to report this bill and let the House deal with it.

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, do you still want a roll-call vote on whether the title carries?

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Absolutely, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to put the question, then.

    (Title negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)

    The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I'd like a clarification. With all due respect, I know our colleagues across the way voted for the title to carry, but--

    The Chair: It's defeated now. We're moving on to the next question.

    Shall the bill carry?

    There is something special about private members' bills. The clerk has reviewed this with me. If the bill does not carry, there has to be a recommendation that the bill will not be further proceeded with in the House. Apparently, there is a motion that goes with that, with some reasons too.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Chair, I would move that the bill not proceed any further in the House, on the basis that it's not a very cost-effective solution to encouraging public transit. There are more cost-effective solutions available. While we congratulate the member for the initiative, I move that it proceed no further in the House.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, rather than report what will be, in essence, an empty bill to the House, may I, with all due respect, suggest that the clerk continue to go through all aspects of the bill, in order that we finish that part? Then we can take Mr. Cullen's recommendation, with my friendly amendment that we are then not reporting an empty bill to the House.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Brison.

    Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR): Madam Chair, I rarely disagree with Mr. Cullen, but I think, particularly given that this legislation has such wide-ranging interest among people on both the transport side and the social side, to have this end here, to have this not go back to the House for a wide-ranging debate that would include parliamentarians, not just us boring bean-counters on the finance committee, but people with more diverse backgrounds and interests in other areas, would be a mistake. I would argue strongly that this ought to go to the House for consideration and debate.

    The Chair: We have defeated clause 1. We have defeated the title. The next question to be put is, shall--

    Mr. Scott Brison: But we have to present reasons, so for a member who was opposed to that decision, would reasons not be recorded as well?

    The Chair: Yes. The reasons are recorded.

    Mr. Scott Brison: But contrary views ought to be--

    The Chair: It's whether that motion passes or not. First we have to say, “Shall the bill carry?” This is an unusual procedure, and most of us have never been through it before. Since they've defeated the first two, the third question logically has to be followed through with. Shall the bill carry?

    Ms. Fry.

    Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Are we voting on the motion?

    The Chair: No, you're voting on whether the bill shall carry.

    (Bill negatived: nays 7; yeas 3; abstentions 1)

    The Chair: I think I need a motion, according to the rules.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I believe you have, Madam Chair, Mr. Cullen's, with my friendly amendment.

    The Chair: Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: On a point of order, I don't think we can deal with this motion, since we haven't had 48 hours notice. Neither did we have 48 hours notice of the meeting, and therefore any motion put forward here cannot be entertained, according to our new rules.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I moved the motion yesterday, and Mr. Epp was here, to jar his memory a little.

    Mr. Ken Epp: That was 24 hours ago.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They did not apply to now, because this was not new business. You were aware of that yesterday, you are still aware of that today, and this is an absolutely irrelevant point you're raising. I'm sorry, with all respect, the fact is that it applies to the future. The clerk has told you that, the chair has told you that, and now I'm telling you that.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. The fact of the matter is that the motion to have 48 hours notice was passed at the beginning of yesterday's meeting.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: For future business.

    Mr. Ken Epp: And future business is this--

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: No, because we had already accepted the--

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: If Thursday is not future to Wednesday, then I think your logic is missing.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The only logic that is missing, unfortunately, is....

    Madam Chair, with all due respect, we have already been through this. If Mr. Epp wants to have this out again at the steering committee, I'm more than happy to chat with him.

    The Chair: I will just repeat one more time for the record that yesterday the future business of doing clause-by-clause on this bill was done, then there was a motion.

    Mr. Ken Epp: That's not true.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That's correct.

    The Chair: It has been explained that this is not new business, so this motion is in order, and I'm so ruling.

    Mr. Ken Epp: So the 48-hour rule applies whenever there's a motion you don't want, but it will not apply when there's a motion you do want. Is that correct?

    The Chair: Mr. Epp, the motion, as has been explained to you a number of times, is relevant to any new item of business, not to the business that is before us. It's a new item, a different item of business.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Then I would contend, Madam Chair--and I have no intention of doing this--that the election of the chair is old business too. We did it last week, right? So we can do it again, right?

    The Chair: That would be new business to me.

    Mr. Ken Epp: No, it's old, because we did it last week, prior to the moving of the 48-hour notice. The logic is flawed here, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Excuse me. First of all, there was no notice on that. We were adjourned, as you well know, just for the record, so we don't have to go through this over and over again.

    Mr. Ken Epp: You're simply saying, though, that for anything that was on the floor prior to the motion the government passed on 48 hours notice, the 48-hour rule does not apply. That's what you're saying on this particular bill.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, let's bring the blues to the steering committee after the break, and we can argue it there. I do not think it's desirable to hash it out now, because, again, we have been through this, but I am more than happy to have my colleague read what we passed.

    The Chair: We are moving current business forward. It is not a separate item of business. Mr. Cullen's motion is on the floor as a recommendation.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I didn't get notice of it. How can it be?

    The Chair: Mr. Epp, I have answered your question.

    Do you have the motion?

    Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: This motion hasn't been debated and I totally disagree with our approach to business this morning. We cannot dispose of a private member's bill in this manner. I'm sorry, but no one has managed to convince me, either this morning or yesterday, that this measure isn't an effective way of meeting the stated objectives. The testimony of officials this morning failed to convince me. Yesterday, we heard from organizations saying just the opposite and claiming that this was a sound measure. I won't endorse a report containing the kind of recommendation just put forward by Mr. Cullen.

    Could we possibly have something more nuanced or could we issue a minority opinion? As a member of the committee, I won't support this kind of blanket rejection without first having my colleague present a thorough analysis of the effects of this bill. I think it's too easy to come here and present scientific arguments under the guise of being a non-elected official.

    We saw one example this week in the case of the transportation tax. We all genuinely believed that an impact assessment study had been done of this particular tax. I too believed this, having been a federal employee for years, but that was not the case. When I hear this morning that this measure would not be an effective way of meeting the objectives, I'm sceptical because an analysis has not been done and because the same type of measure has been successfully implemented elsewhere.

    Therefore, I will not endorse this motion moved in such a cavalier manner by Mr. Cullen. Give me some other way to express my views in your report.

[English]

    The Chair: So people know the section of the Standing Orders we're in, section 97.1 of the Standing Orders states:

A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days or the thirty sitting day extension if approved by the House, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

    That is the rule. The clerk went over that with me earlier today.

    We have the motion, but, Mr. Cullen, I take it you're trying to do a nuanced version for Mr. Loubier.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: We haven't often dealt with private members bill like this one, but would there be some way, in all intellectual honesty, to take this bill and demand that a more formal, more scientific analysis be done of this proposed measure? It's truly terrible to reject this proposal out of hand as being worthless.

[English]

    The Chair: Perhaps there is some wording that could assist Mr. Loubier at this point, Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I wonder if Mr. Loubier would expand on the kind of wording he's looking for.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Cullen, it's easy to take a bill like this, to dismiss it lightly and to wash your hands of the whole affair. However, if we want to be honest with ourselves and do our job properly, we need to adopt a more nuanced approach. Can we be more nuanced in our analysis and in our report? Can we say that the effects of this proposed measure have not been thoroughly analysed? We shouldn't reject it outright or argue that it would not be a cost-effective solution, particularly since the views stated yesterday by other organizations and by my colleague this morning, along with our discussions with officials, seem to indicate that this issue is not black and white.

    I disagree that the proposed measure is not cost effective. It's been successfully introduced elsewhere. Even this morning, I found that people were confused about this matter. Even though this measure would apply to 75 per cent of current public transit users, one must understand that public transit companies face some difficult challenges in today's industry. The demand for public transit has not grown much in recent years. In fact, demand is up a paltry 10 per cent or so since 1995 or 1996.

    Transportation companies are having to reduce the quality and frequency of service. In the transportation sector, quality and frequency of service are important. Already, companies are cutting back on public transit services.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Chair, while I would like to be accommodating in the motion, we have defeated the bill, we've had witnesses here who have made their cases, both pro and con. The will of the committee, it seems to me, is that the bill is defeated, and an essential feature was that it is not cost-effective and it is unfair. I'm not sure what further study is required. The motion reads, “That the House of Commons not deal with this bill further”, so it seems to me that no further study by the House of Commons is recommended, according to this motion.

    While we understand this is a great initiative and the thought behind it is a good one, I'm not sure how we can nuance the wording to say something that I think, certainly in regard to my motivation would weasel-word around why I'm not going to support the bill. If this motion passes, presumably, members here would support that.

    Madam Chair, why don't I give the clerk the motion? Unfortunately, I don't have it. I've tried to nuance it somewhat, but...

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: If you give it to the clerk in writing, we can look at it.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Could you translate it as well?

    The Chair: We can read it into the record.

    Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, I think the intent is that we're reporting back an empty bill. I would agree with my colleague Mr. Loubier that we are not trying to trash or to be negative. Moderate language is fine. I think, in fact, Mr. Loubier, even with your colleague Madam Girard-Bujold in her comments to me this morning, there are merits in dealing with the issue of public transit. I don't want to re-debate this thing, because it is not appropriate. The issue simply is that on this particular approach, the bill has been defeated. However, I do not believe that at any point we are closing the door to other approaches to dealing with this very serious issue.

    Therefore, if we have language that is less confrontational, I have no difficulty with that, but what we are essentially doing, in my view, Madam Chair, is reporting back to the House an empty bill--there is no bill to report. I don't think we are making any disparaging remarks about either the bill or the presentations we've heard.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Loubier, you have a short point.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: I understand what you're saying, Mr. Wilfert. From a procedural and democratic standpoint, certainly the proposal has been voted down and the matter is closed. However, I can't accept people invoking reasons that are not justified.

    It has been argued that the proposed measure is not cost effective. Where are the cost benefit analyses? None has been presented, so how can they say the measure is not cost effective?

    No one listens to my arguments any more so I will let the matter rest. I don't think anyone is paying attention anyway. Thank you, Ms. Minna. You and Mr. Assadourian appear to be the only ones listening to me. I see that my colleagues Ms. Folco and Mr. Binet are listening as well.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): You see, you do have some friends in the Liberal Party.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: What I'm saying is that Members no longer have the desire to introduce bills like this one. There is considerable preparation time involved. Much though must go into this extensive process. Yet, a handful of officials appear and after some discussion, with the party line prevailing, the proposal is found not to be cost effective. First of all, intellectually, it's dishonest to arrive at this conclusion without having done a cost benefit analysis.

    Second, the bill is deemed unfair because its provisions do not target the population as a whole. That's false as well. This morning, Ms. Bujold stated that the measure would amount to a refundable tax credit. Therefore, low, middle and high income earners would benefit from this universal measure.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: People don't get a refund, Mr. Loubier, unless they file a tax return at year's end.

    M. Yvan Loubier: Madam, a person is entitled to a refundable tax credit even if he doesn't pay any taxes. That's the beauty of the thing. That's why it's a universal measure. Therefore, it's wrong to say this measure is unfair. Even the most disadvantaged would be entitled to receive this refundable tax credit.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I have a question. What you're saying is true, to some extent, but how is this different from any other bill tabled and defeated into which a Member has put a great deal of work and effort? It's exactly the same situation.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: In fact, my comments pertain to private members bills in general, not just to this specific bill. Generally speaking, I find the process...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, I've been trying to listen to the clerk and follow this debate at the same time, and it's very difficult.

    Mr. Epp was the next--

    Mr. Roy Cullen: On a point of order, Madam Chair, we're now re-debating the bill. The bill is defeated. It's a question of trying to be accommodating with the wording. I have now tried to nuance it as best I can. Perhaps I could read the motion I'm proposing. Elle est en anglais, et je m'en excuse.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know if I can interrupt the point of order, but can he pre-empt now the speaking order by saying, on a point of order, that he has a motion to propose?

    The Chair: The motion is his motion, and he was trying to nuance it to accommodate the debate that was going on here. I think he was trying to be helpful, to avoid prolonging this.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: What I'm trying to do is get back to some revised wording. My point of order was really to say I'm not sure we're here to re-debate the bill. The bill is defeated. It's a question of coming up with some language that can be useful all around.

    Let me read my motion:

    

The committee is not convinced that the measure proposed in Bill C-209 is the most cost-effective means of encouraging the use of public transit and believes that additional study is needed of measures by which public transit use among all residents of Canada, including the poor and not just taxpayers, might be encouraged in the most cost-effective manner possible in light of the fiscal realities of government.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Could you word the motion differently?

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Would you like me to repeat it?

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: As an assertion, the motion is devoid of any meaning.

[English]

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I think there is a broad issue here as well, that a variety of private members' bills have dealt with this question. To date most or all of them have been defeated. I, for one, am not convinced we need to do a lot more study. I'm prepared to accept, if that is the will of the committee, that we need to do a lot more study of tax measures along the lines that have been proposed in this bill, with vouchers or tax deductibility. We've had a number of private members' bills, and none of them has really gone anywhere in the House. What I mean by this is investments in public transit, in infrastructure. There's nothing to preclude a private member from studying and re-proposing anything, but I'm not sure it's the intent here to consume the time of the House in further study. This bill has been defeated, and similar bills have been defeated.

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen, which motion are we going with? Are you amending yours?

    Mr. Roy Cullen: This is the motion I'd like to propose.

    The Chair: Could we give that to the clerk?

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay.

    The Chair: For the first part of your first motion, the legislative clerk here was--

    Mr. Roy Cullen: No, Madam Chair, I've given the clerk the motion I want dealt with. I've discarded the other one. I've tried to nuance it and to be accommodating to the members opposite.

    The Chair: Yes, I realize that, Mr. Cullen. Under the rules, as explained to me by the legislative clerk, it has to have a recommendation that the bill not be further proceeded with.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, that was actually in the wording of my first one. You could just tag that with, “That the bill not proceed further to the House of Commons, because....”

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair, would it be possible to table a minority opinion in this instance? I don't believe so. Therefore, when you table your report, we will have 30 seconds to voice our disagreement in the House. Is that what you're telling me?

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Chair, I've asked to be recognized twice, but to no avail.

[English]

    The Chair: Madame Picard.

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: When you say you're not convinced of the cost effectiveness of this measure, you're speaking for the committee as a whole. Not all committee members would agree. Perhaps you should qualify your statement and say that the majority, that is the government side, disagrees with the measure.

    At the same time, you need to indicate which measures you think would be effective and what steps the government intends to take.

[English]

    The Chair: The legislative clerk is just going to have a few words with Mr. Cullen on his motion, and that way we could be clear on what we will vote for. My understanding from the clerk is that there is one very brief thing going to the House. We'll just let her have a minute with him, because there's no sense in going around in circles.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: When you table this report in the House, will we have an opportunity to rise and voice our opinion?

[English]

    The Chair: The clerk is going to give you the answer to your question.

    Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[Translation]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Loubier, once the report has been adopted by the committee, the chair will move to table it in the House. Once that has happened, a Member can give notice of motion for the report to be concurred in. At that point, the motion can be debated, which means that members will have an opportunity to respond and comment.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: There's no difference between this and any other bill.

    The Clerk: Members would then have a certain amount of time to debate the report.

[English]

    The Chair: I think that answers you quite fully. The question, then, is on the motion.

    Now we'll have the clerk read the motion as Mr. Cullen has given it.

    The Clerk: I will read it out, and perhaps members can tell me if this is acceptable or not.

Since the committee is not convinced that the measure proposed in Bill C-209 is the most cost-effective means of encouraging the use of public transit and believes that additional study is needed of measures by which public transit use amongst all residents of Canada, including the poor and not just taxpayers, might be encouraged in the most cost-effective manner possible in light of the fiscal realities of government, the committee recommends to the House that Bill C-209 not be further proceeded with and that the order be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

    The Chair: That's the technical legal language both clerks have provided. Are you satisfied with that?

    May I have a roll-call vote on that motion?

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    The Chair: There is one more question I have to ask under the rules. Shall I report this to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you. I've only seen this happen in one other committee, a long time ago.

    We are adjourned.