Mr. Watson, no, I don't think it's a duplication. In the review that was started back in, I guess, November last year—I think we tabled at the end of October, so the government committed to doing the review over the current year and then reporting back in October of this year—there were a lot of elements that we were hoping it would include, and this is one of them: looking at the concept of an overarching strategy. We also suggested in our recommendation and in the text surrounding the recommendation that Environment Canada or whoever does the review should also look at other issues, such as rewards and sanctions and that sort of thing.
That group doing the review hasn't been back here yet. I've had one meeting with officials from Environment Canada. We're going to talk, I guess tomorrow, Mr. Mills, but I think somewhere along the line, if I may suggest this—and I hope I'm not being presumptuous in doing so—it would be good, I think, for Environment Canada and the colleagues with whom they're working on this review to come back to this committee and to tell the committee what it's doing. I'd be delighted to be here with you when that's going on.
In an ideal world, having the people doing the review here just as they've finished the planning would be helpful, so that if they're getting off-base in the plan, we'd know and you'd know; secondly, mid-way through the review, to see what they're finding, what's coming out, what's emerging; and then, of course, when the review is completed, to consult fully with this committee and others on the recommendations they might be making and then have this committee and other committees get behind those recommendations.
I don't think there's any inconsistency; I think they dovetail together quite well. But it's probably time to have Environment Canada and the other colleagues with whom they're working sit down with you to talk about what they're doing.