Evidence of meeting #78 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alicia Milner  President, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance
Henry Van Ankum  Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario
Shannon Bittman  Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Tom King  Co-Chair, Finance and Taxation Committee, Associate Partner, Tax, KPMG LLP, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Peter Bleyer  Senior Advisor, Policy and Communications, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Bruce MacDonald  President, Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada
Michael Atkinson  President, Canadian Construction Association
Barb Mildon  President, Canadian Nurses Association
Robert Peterson  Staff Lawyer, Ecojustice Canada
Magali Delomier  Director General, Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I call this meeting to order. This is the 78th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We're continuing our pre-budget consultations for 2012.

In the first panel—and we have two panels today—we have four organizations from 3:30 to 5 p.m. First of all, we have the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance; secondly, the Grain Farmers of Ontario; thirdly, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada; and we also have the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us here today. You each have five minutes for your opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members.

We will start with the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance, please.

3:35 p.m.

Alicia Milner President, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance

Thank you.

My name is Alicia Milner. I'm the president of the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance.

It's a privilege to appear today before the committee and to speak on behalf of Canada's natural gas vehicle industry.

I'm here to share with you the challenges that are increasingly facing Canada in the areas of jobs, growth, competitiveness, and achieving a sustainable environment, and to share with you the rapid deployment that our largest trading partner to the south is making in close proximity to our shared border and how it can negatively impact our job retention, job creation, investment, and environmental outcomes if we don't pool our Canadian resources to get us on a more level North American playing field.

In the brief time allotted to me today, I would like to highlight how responding to this increasing continental infrastructure challenge can not only contribute to job retention but can also trigger more than $1.2 billion in private sector spending, lead to the creation of more than 1,200 new jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one megatonne, and increase competitiveness while ensuring there are no job losses in the Canadian trucking industry resulting from lower-cost American LNG trucks operating in Canada.

First, let's consider what's happening with our largest trading partner, the U.S. While we're focused on pipeline projects and LNG exports, in the U.S. the private sector is rapidly moving forward with investments of more than $750 million that will transform the landscape for energy use for heavy trucks. LNG refuelling stations are being built on interstate trucking corridors across the U.S. By switching to natural gas, trucking fleets will reduce their fuel costs by 40% and their emissions by 25%. Consumers will benefit because all food and consumer goods typically are delivered by truck.

Now I'd like you to turn your attention to the map handout that was distributed and should be in front of you. You can see for yourself the viral infrastructure expansion taking place with our largest trading partner.

You'll notice how rapidly their LNG station network and trucking corridors have grown in this year alone. You can see that this expansion has virtually all taken place across the southern and mid-U.S. Perhaps that's why this activity has not been receiving the attention it deserves here, north of the border. As you can also see from the map, this is about to immediately change in the coming months—and note that I said “months”, not years.

As you can see, the growth of LNG refuelling stations and corridors in the U.S. is now starting to expand across Canada's immediate southern border and in the northeast U.S. From west to east, in proximity to some of Canada's densest population areas and in the lucrative northeast region, the Americans are expanding: Washington state, Idaho, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.

Why? Because natural gas offers a lower-cost fuel choice for the trucking industry, an industry in which diesel fuel is the number one expense. With new vehicle regulations coming that require greenhouse gas emissions reductions, which will make diesel trucks even more complex, adopting natural gas now is a smart and timely business decision.

I'll go back to the map. Let's turn our attention to Canada. I would respectfully ask you to compare the Canada map with the U.S. map.

As you compare these maps, remember that more than 400,000 Canadians work in the trucking and transportation services sector; two-thirds of our trade with the U.S. moves by truck; and the majority of Canada's southbound trade goes through Ontario to the U.S. central, northeast, and south, the very areas where we are seeing the Americans invest to bring a more affordable, lower-emission fuel to the trucking industry, a fuel that Canadian trucking fleets will not be able to use as they do not have access to this fuel in their own domestic market.

As you can see, this is a rather stark reality that confronts us. As more and more fleets switch to natural gas in the U.S., the market transformation we are starting to see will pick up speed and further disadvantage Canada. We risk being left behind in a continental market and being forced to catch up at a later date—and at a greater cost. We also risk the loss of significant new capital investments that will be made over the coming years to bring LNG into the market as a fuel for heavy trucks and for ships and locomotives.

The private sector does not like unnecessary risk. As the market starts to grow for LNG as a transportation fuel in the U.S., it can be expected that private sector companies, with a choice between investing in the U.S. or Canada, will favour the U.S., given the larger, more concentrated market and the head start we're currently witnessing with the LNG station and corridor build-out.

Canada has an opportunity to act now. Industry is ready to invest, but we need government to partner with us in order to level the playing field for Canadian fleets, which also would very much like to have the choice of a lower-cost, lower-emission fuel that also happens to be Canadian.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Grain Farmers of Ontario.

3:35 p.m.

Henry Van Ankum Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, honourable members, and my thanks to you, Mr. Chair, and to the members of the committee for providing the Grain Farmers of Ontario with the opportunity to speak on behalf of our 28,000 members growing corn, soybeans, and wheat in Ontario.

My name is Henry Van Ankum. I farm near Aylmer, Ontario, just north of Guelph, and I am the chairman of the Grain Farmers of Ontario. Our members produce over nine million tons of grain on five million acres. Our production generates 3.3 billion in farm gate receipts, results in $6 billion in economic output, and provides over 50,000 Canadian jobs. In the Canadian context, Ontario is the largest agricultural province, with $9.3 billion in sales. In grain production, we are the third-largest producing province after Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In March 2013, the agricultural industry in Canada will complete a five-year policy framework called Growing Forward. The entire industry has been working with government over the last couple of years through a consultative process to define the broad sector needs within the next policy framework. In the last few months, more details of the business risk management programs have been released. The non-business risk management components are still under discussion, although provincial allocations of funds have been decided.

Although I don't intend to dwell on the past, I would be remiss if I didn't register our disappointment with the cuts to the federal business risk management suite of programs—more specifically, AgriStability and AgriInvest. The agriculture and agrifood sector is one of the largest contributors to the Canadian economy. The sector provides one in eight jobs, employs two million people, and accounts for over 8% of Canada's total economic output.

We are pleased, however, with the increased commitment the government has made in Growing Forward 2 to the areas of research and market access. These investments will have a significant impact on the future success of our sector. At this point, we know that more money will be available nationally for initiatives like science clusters, the advancement of the bio-product sector, and an aggressive trade agenda that will include the growth of markets key to Ontario's grain producers, like Japan and the EU. What we don't know right now are the details of how national programs will prioritize opportunities and give the appropriate oversight required to meet national goals.

We are here today to bring the concern of program equity to the finance committee with respect to programming in Growing Forward 2. Now that the broad program-funding envelope has been decided, it is important to our members that clear program objectives be established and that guidelines for equity between provinces and producers be put in place for national programs.

It has been a concern of many of our farmer members that, despite our province being the largest for agriculture production, many of the national programs and infrastructure investments, particularly within the grain sector, appear to favour western Canada. Our experience with the science clusters in the previous framework illustrates the basis for this perception.

The Canadian corn, soybean, and wheat commodity organizations from Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes formed an alliance to apply for cluster funding in 2010, when the program was first announced. Our proposal for funding was declined for not meeting the criterion of a national scope, despite the fact that our crops are only grown in the provinces represented within the alliance. In 2010, 70% of the program money was spent in western Canada, including the largest science cluster investment, which was specific to crops grown in western Canada.

We hope that this new policy framework is a new start and, with additional funding, there is a new opportunity to make significant scientific and trade advancements. In Ontario, where the largest economic driver in the province is agriculture and agrifood, investments can be made in which the value gained can be realized right through the value chain.

In winter wheat plant breeding, as an example, a five-year annual federal government investment of $200,000 a year, matched by industry and farmers, will increase the competitiveness of our third-largest cash crop by increasing yield by 2% per year, improving the milling and baking quality of our wheat to increase high-value market opportunities and reducing production losses from insects and diseases by 50%.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have one minute left.

3:35 p.m.

Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario

Henry Van Ankum

Most of our anticipated winter wheat breeding advancements will be an advantage for the Canadian baking industry also. Sixty per cent of Canada's bakeries are located in Ontario, within just a few hundred kilometres of our one-million-acre wheat-growing region.

Additionally, Ontario winter wheat has the advantage of being produced within an eight-hour drive of 130 million consumers living in two of Canada's richest cities and 11 of the 20 wealthiest U.S. States. The value generated by the one million acres of Ontario winter wheat is $1 billion in sales revenue and over 7,000 Canadian jobs. That is our third-largest cash crop in the province.

Unfortunately, without broad government goals for innovation and without strong oversight, opportunities like this one will be missed when retiring researchers and the need for program cuts coincide, as they have recently.

As we prepare for another five-year policy framework, we in the Grain Farmers of Ontario are excited about the many opportunities in our sector for innovation and increased market access. Our organization is prepared to invest in these opportunities as well, because we truly believe that significant value can be added in our grain sector. We look forward to working with government to invest strategically in opportunities that benefit all Canadians.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your presentation.

We will now hear from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

3:40 p.m.

Shannon Bittman Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

My name is Shannon Bittman. I'm a national vice-president with the institute representing 60,000 federal public service workers across Canada.

We're very pleased to be here participating in the House finance committee's pre-budget process. Our submission has identified a few of our key concerns, which I would like to touch on briefly today.

The first deals with economic recovery and growth. Our country is currently labouring through a slow and extremely weak recovery from a serious and damaging recession. Lessons learned from the recent European experiences, including those of Greece, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Ireland, have shown that severe spending cuts can be counterproductive and can result in even worse economic outcomes: higher unemployment, lower revenues, a slower economy, and even a much higher deficit.

In The Wall Street Journal last February, the world's two leading credit-rating firms, Moody's and Fitch, criticized Canada's deep budget cuts as unnecessary and counterproductive in the context of a fragile economic recovery.

In our submission, we recommend that the federal government put an end to its indiscriminate and wide-ranging program cuts and explore alternative sources of savings and revenue generation, such as eliminating further corporate tax reductions. We highlight wasteful outsourcing practices that should be targeted—for example, contracting out services, especially in the case of Shared Services Canada—and the need to reinvest these savings in key regulatory functions, such as the food inspection system.

On job creation, we note that jobs have been lost in previous rounds of budget cuts, through the strategic expenditure review process starting in 2007, and through the 2010 budget, which froze operating budgets of all departments and agencies, and now, more recently, as a result of the 2011 budget, the deficit reduction action plan is adversely affecting the Canadian job market and the Canadian economy as a whole.

It is estimated that approximately 19,200 jobs will be eliminated in the federal public service under the DRAP alone, which will have a ripple effect on the private sector, with up to another 40,000 job losses anticipated. In fact, these cuts will also impact on job creation by removing direct and valuable services, such as those at regional development agencies, which provide critical support for potential entrepreneurs and small business owners at a time when the economy needs innovation and new businesses to grow.

Given the economic circumstances, to protect the fragile economic recovery and job recovery in the private sector, we recommend that the federal government refrain from any further job cuts.

On productivity and public science, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the serious challenge that is now facing our country's future prosperity and the health of our citizens and their environment. I am referring to the current government's single-minded and narrow-minded attack on the science and evidence that are essential for effective and credible decision-making and the protection of the public good.

From the long-form census to the world-renowned experimental lakes area, from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, and from environmental emergencies response capacity to habitat management and the toxicology labs that contribute to our fisheries' health and sustainability, this government's decisions are scarring the scientific landscape of our country and putting at risk the health and prosperity of future generations of Canadians. By cutting a whole host of research-based programs, Canada is losing its capacity for sound, evidence-based policy decisions and eliminating services that provide real value to Canadians.

With regard to demographic change, Canadians need a comprehensive defined benefit pension plan so that all Canadians can retire with dignity. There's a direct correlation between countries with the most comprehensive public pension plans and poverty rates for seniors.

By ensuring that retirees can depend on a predefined pension, public pension plans, such as old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, can be redirected towards those who need it the most. Our solution is to ensure a secure income in retirement by requiring mandatory CPP increases. We recommend that this government promote and encourage employers to offer defined benefit pension plans and to implement mandatory increases to CPP.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll hear now from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

3:45 p.m.

Tom King Co-Chair, Finance and Taxation Committee, Associate Partner, Tax, KPMG LLP, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Tom King. I would like thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee and offer comments on proposed measures for inclusion in the 2013 federal budget on behalf of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

I am the co-chair of the PDAC finance and tax committee and an associate tax partner at KPMG LLP. The PDAC is a national association representing more than 10,000 members involved in the mineral exploration and development industry, both in Canada and around the world.

The mining sector creates jobs and economic stimulus in some of the remotest communities in Canada. In 2010 the mining industry employed 308,000 people, contributed $36 billion to the national GDP, and paid $5.5 billion to governments in taxes and royalties. Mineral exploration and mining are the lifeblood of many rural and remote communities throughout Canada and represent the largest private sector employer of aboriginals in Canada.

Canada is recognized as a leader in mineral exploration, development, financing, mining, and related technologies, services, and activities. In 2011 we led all countries, with 18% of the world's mineral exploration spending, while Australia was second, at 13%.

The TSX Venture Exchange is number one in equity capital raised for mining and number one in listed mining companies, with 58% of the world's total. At the end of 2011,1,646 companies—or 43%—that were listed on the TSX Venture Exchange were from the mining sector. In comparison, the Australian exchange lists 700, and the New York Stock Exchange lists 141.

One of the most influential elements of Canada's exploration leadership is attributable in part to measures included in our tax system to assist the junior mining industry in raising equity: more specifically, provisions in respect of flow-through share financing, which assists both early stage grassroots exploration and funding in the significant costs incurred to bring a mine into production, and the mineral exploration tax credit, which I'll refer to as METC and which is focused solely on funds raised to undertake early stage grassroots exploration in Canada. These are the lifeblood of a junior mining industry.

Mr. Chairman, the METC is vitally important, as exploration companies have no production revenue. Most are small businesses that rely on investors who are willing to support the high-risk nature of exploration. As the research and development branch of the mining sector, exploration companies do not have production revenue and rely on investors who are prepared to support their high-risk activities.

The ongoing global financial crisis and contraction of the equity markets have had a dramatic and negative effect on the exploration sector. While precious metals and some base metals continue to see relatively good pricing, which has benefited our operating mines, the junior exploration sector is currently facing a downturn.

Reduced investments lead to fewer drilling programs and negatively impact regional employment and income, particularly in rural, northern, and aboriginal communities. Our concern is that without sustained and effective exploration, Canadian mineral production will outstrip additions to its reserves, jeopardizing the country's smelters and refiners and placing the domestic mining industry at risk.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have one minute.

3:50 p.m.

Co-Chair, Finance and Taxation Committee, Associate Partner, Tax, KPMG LLP, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada

Tom King

We believe that the government has a role to play in contributing to the stability of this sector. The METC, introduced in 2000, has consistently provided Canada with one of our competitive advantages and helps to provide Canadians with attractive domestic investment opportunities.

Our recommendation is not only to renew the METC, but to make the 15% mineral exploration tax credit a permanent feature of the federal tax system. This will provide our industry with the long-term certainty to plan crucial investments in exploration programs that, by their very nature, span a multiple of years.

We believe our recommendation meets the objectives set out in a pre-budget consultation. Further, we believe that a vibrant mineral sector in Canada creates jobs in all regions of the country, sustains communities, fosters new business opportunities, and raises tax revenues that allow governments to meet social needs.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to improving economic and social conditions for Canadians.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will begin members' questions with Monsieur Caron, s'il vous plaît, for five minutes.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Thank you very much.

Thank you to everyone for being here today. We had four wonderful presentations, on quite varied topics.

I'll start with Mr. Van Ankum since, among other things, I am from a riding that depends a lot on agriculture. We grow a little grain, and there is a lot of milk production and cattle.

Farmers often ask me two main questions. Perhaps you will be able to answer them.

You spoke in your brief about family farms. In my riding, most of the people who speak to me mention the difficulty that family farms are currently facing because of competition from large integrators.

I would like to know what you think about the Canadian government's current policies on family farms. Do you think the rules and regulations enable them to develop, be it in grain or other areas? I would like you to address these areas.

Another complaint has been made and might affect the grain industry. When we talk about importing products, our farmers, when they are producing, are facing environmental and standards constraints that they must comply with and that are not imposed on the producers of the products we import. Obviously, this causes serious problems and reduces the ability of our farmers to be competitive.

What do you think about that? Does this affect the grain industry? How could the government address this issue?

3:55 p.m.

Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario

Henry Van Ankum

Thank you very much.

There's a number of different aspects to your question. Certainly, the core of farming in Canada is still the family farm. I think it's important to acknowledge that the definition of the family farm has probably changed a bit over the years, in that families have adapted to different conditions and the economic conditions around them. We have seen family farms take on many structures.

I have a family farm. I operate my farm with my wife and my four children. Also, I was born and raised on a farm. I know that sometimes we hear the corporate farm slammed, but my family has chosen to operate under a corporate entity for a number of reasons. It's a much better business vehicle for us. I think we have to be a bit careful in being too narrow in our definition of the family farm, because a family farm can take on many different structures as it adapts to business conditions around it.

I'll move on to another aspect of your question. When we think about imports coming into the country and the different sets of rules and regulations for them as opposed to the conditions that we operate under with our domestically grown products, that is an area of concern. We feel that it is very important to have the same requirements for those imported products that we would experience here at home and to have an equal playing field of competitiveness between our industries.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

I will continue with you.

You spoke about the AgriStability program and the fact that it was affected by the last budget. What recommendations would you have regarding that program? Not only does it stabilize agricultural revenue, but it also enables farmers to have access some capital or, at the very least, to obtain bank loans.

3:55 p.m.

Chair, Grain Farmers of Ontario

Henry Van Ankum

Specific to the AgriInvest program, there was a reduction in the federal matching contribution to the farmer's contribution. AgriInvest is essentially a risk-management tool for the producer to set aside some funds during a good year in order to be able to fall back on them in a year when the market returns are not as strong. The reduction from 1.5% to 1% in that contribution will be felt as a negative impact on farming operations.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Merci.

I'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren, please.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of you for coming. What a great group we have here today. I wish I had half an hour, because I think I have questions for all of you. I'll direct my questions to Ms. Milner, though.

You've given us some incredible statistics: 400,000 Canadians work in the truck and transportation sector, and two-thirds of our trade with the U.S. moves by truck. I don't know if people realize just how much trucking is a part of everybody's life.

Natural gas is a very interesting and exciting new development. We're of course talking about liquefied natural gas. I understand, too, that part of the challenge in the past was in creating an engine that was able to use the gas. I understand that the foremost company in natural gas trucking is a B.C. company—Westport. Is that correct?

4 p.m.

President, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance

Alicia Milner

That's right.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

However, although we do have the leading technology, we're not seeing the type of investment, you said, that is going to be necessary. Why? Maybe you can tell us. I understand there had been some federal funds allocated towards the development. Maybe you could talk about that and then tell us why you think we're not seeing the same investment.

My second question is, as an industry, how do you see the role of government in this development of natural gas?

One final thing, too, so that folks understand what we're talking about. In order to have a network of trucks moving through the continent, we need to have filling stations. That involves a lot of regulations and such.

4 p.m.

President, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

That's what we're talking about this time.

4 p.m.

President, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance

Alicia Milner

Well, first of all, certainly representing the CNGVA, we would like to recognize the federal government. We are benefiting now from the ecoEnergy for alternative fuels program, which is a $3-million, five-year program to build capacity really to help end-users change. For instance, whether it's training or codes and standards, we need to have consistency across Canada. This program is leveraging the same amount of money from the industry and has been a great success under Natural Resources Canada's leadership, so thank you very much for that.

I brought the map today. Obviously, there's a lot of investment going on in the U.S. that we're not yet seeing in Canada. This is really about scale. We have a market that's one-tenth the size and, of course, we have a lot more geography. We know that investment's going to flow where the richest opportunities are, and that's exactly what we're seeing in the U.S., where the private sector is targeting the densest trucking corridors to bring this fuel into the market.

It's definitely a challenge, and a challenge for us, sitting in a continental market, because we know it doesn't stop at the border. This is a very integrated market for goods movement in North America. I think that's a critical concern.

First, on the role for government, we really see that it's very helpful to be working on these capacity-building aspects.

Second, how do we get around this scale issue, particularly as we see the Americans taking a strong lead? I think the private sector is ready and is investing in infrastructure. We don't see any role for government in infrastructure. Where we do see a government role is in helping the end-users invest in these technologies. In fact, for every dollar the federal government would put toward fleet and users to adopt these lower GHG technologies, industry will invest $5 in infrastructure.

What's key about this is that we're at the start of a transformation. It's not going to affect just the on-road trucks. Some of you may have seen a CN Rail announcement: they're now going to demonstrate a locomotive between Edmonton and Fort McMurray. We're starting to also see tighter marine regulations coming.

On the question of what the investment window is to support this transformation, it's right now, and that is really the risk. I noticed Mr. Brison isn't in the room for the committee hearing today, but Irving Oil announced that it's going to offer LNG at five of its truck stops. Well, that's great, and that's probably about a $10-million investment at existing sites, but the real investment is to produce the LNG to supply those stations. Now, Irving operates in the northeast U.S., the Maritimes, and Quebec: where is that investment likely going to go in the absence of any certainty in Canada? There's a good chance it will go to the U.S..

It's that investment window at the front end, as we see this change coming in North America, that I think is critical in why we see a role for government in having a national look at this and making sure on a continent-wide basis that we have the level playing field we need.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

I note as just a friendly reminder to our colleagues and witnesses that we don't refer to the presence or absence of a member of Parliament at a committee or in Parliament.

Thank you.

We'll go now to Ms. Murray for five minutes, please.