A/HRC/8/7* page 12 90. Canada proposed amending the wording to “shall assess the adequacy of the steps taken by the State Party in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Covenant”. 91. With regard to the third sentence, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, India, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Portugal, the Russian Federation and Sri Lanka sought the deletion of “margin of appreciation”. Austria, Ireland, Japan, Poland and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported its retention, while Canada, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom supported adding the word “broad” or “wide” before the word “margin”. Canada, supported by several States, proposed amending the end of the sentence to “the appropriate policy measures and allocation of its resources in accordance with domestic priorities”. 92. The International Labour Organization, by reference to article 74, paragraph 5, of the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, proposed inserting a new paragraph reading “When considering communications related to matters falling within the competence of the International Labour Organization, the Committee shall invite the International Labour Office to appoint a representative to participate, in a consultative capacity, in its meetings.”. Article 8 bis 93. Canada suggested the deletion of the second and third paragraphs and the last part of paragraph 1, converting the first part of that paragraph into a new paragraph 5 of article 8. Article 9 94. Argentina, Egypt, Ghana, South Africa, the Netherlands and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported the retention of article 9. France and Poland noted that article 9 was acceptable given its optional nature. Poland stressed the non-binding nature of the report submitted by the Committee under this procedure. 95. China, Japan, New Zealand, Senegal, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation preferred the deletion of article 9. If retained, delegations underlined the need to ensure the consistency of the text with the rest of the protocol. Articles 10, 11 and 11 bis 96. Several delegations supported the retention of the inquiry procedure provided for in articles 10 and 11. Other delegations called for the deletion of these articles. 97. Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States requested retaining the reference to the words “grave or systematic” in article 10, paragraph 1. Ecuador preferred their deletion. 98. With regard to article 10, paragraph 5, Brazil and Sweden asked to retain the time frame of six months. France advised to replace it with a longer time period or by the wording “preferably six months”.