Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to start on a lighter note.
While listening to your presentations, especially Mr. Huffaker's, I was surprised that you quoted the amount of money that oil generates in Canada, the number of jobs, the incredible development, etc., but that you did not, even though this is the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, mention the quantity of greenhouse gases that you produce; I was also surprised that you did not talk either about your contribution to climate change nor of the quantity of water that you protect, and so on.
Mr. Everson, I am under the impression that you were speaking particularly on behalf of large chambers of commerce. In my riding there are chambers of commerce and their attitude is not the one you described. They are very interested in seeing—and I would say that this is in fact one of their priorities—a very strict law to protect the environment. You see, that is very different. And yet you are a part of the...
I would like to put the same question to all of you. If we set aside what Mr. Calkins said earlier it seems to me that you are not against the principle embodied in this law. If I understood correctly, it is not the principle but the coercive procedures that the law would put in place that are of concern to you. I am not saying that this is groundless, I don't know.
My question is addressed to all of you. Since it is likely that the principle of the legislation is valid and you are in favour of it, would there be some way of amending the bill to make it acceptable from the point of view of its constraints?
I will begin with you, Mr. Broad, but I would like to hear from each one of you.