In your estimation, did these $905,000 help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Did this expenditure contribute to any reduction? From what envelope was this money taken? I am a little surprised, because I have read Mr. Simard's declarations. Do you know what the purpose of this $900,000 expense was? He stated that the campaign aimed at supporting the important announcement that had been made. This amount did not really help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we are not looking at a maximization of greenhouse gas emission reductions for each dollar invested, but rather at a promotion campaign for the government, in support of its climate change plan.
Is it a common occurrence, at the Department of the Environment, that every dollar invested be used for advertising campaigns rather than for programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Why was this million dollars not invested in home refit programs? Why did you not use this money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of investing it in a communications plan? Is that common place in the Department? Do you often see such expenditures?