Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

First I want to apologize that we are running behind schedule. We just had votes in the House. Members will continue to drift in, but we have quorum and we'll get moving.

We have before us today, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), the fall 2010 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which was referred to this committee yesterday.

Joining us from the Office of the Auditor General is the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan.

Welcome, Scott.

With him is the principal for sustainable development strategies, audits and studies, Jim McKenzie.

Joining us from the Department of the Environment we have Michael Keenan, assistant deputy minister, strategic policy branch; Jim Abraham, director general, weather and environmental monitoring; and Dan Wicklum, director general, water science and technology.

From the DFO we have Jody Thomas, deputy commissioner, operations, Canadian Coast Guard.

From the Department of Health there is Paul Glover, assistant deputy minister, healthy environments and consumer safety branch.

From the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development we have Sheila Gariepy, director, environment and renewable resources directorate, northern affairs.

From the Department of Natural Resources we have David Boerner, the acting assistant deputy minister, earth sciences sector.

From the Department of Transport we have Gerard McDonald, assistant deputy minister, safety and security.

Not all departments are sitting at the table, but they are here to take questions if members have questions of their specific departments based on the commissioner's report.

We have four presentations before we take questions from members of the committee.

Commissioner Vaughan, please kick us off, and keep your opening comments to less than 10 minutes.

Thank you.

[Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting us.

I'm pleased to present to the committee our 2010 fall report that was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday. I'm accompanied by senior colleagues Jim McKenzie, Andrew Ferguson, and Richard Arseneault.

Our report examines a number of areas, ranging from oil spills from ships to fresh water monitoring and climate change impacts.

It points to some common and long-standing weaknesses in the way the government has been managing environmental issues, from a lack of critical data to inadequate information about key environmental threats, to a lack of plans to tackle those threats.

Over the years the government has made repeated commitments to take the lead in protecting the environment and moving toward sustainable development. Sustained leadership is necessary to successfully address the weaknesses we have reported time and time again.

The first chapter in the report examines the government’s readiness to respond to oil spills from ships. Every day, on average, at least one oil spill is reported to the Canadian Coast Guard and it responds. Fortunately, most spills are small. However, given the findings of this audit, I am troubled that the government is not ready to respond to a major oil spill.

We found that the Canadian Coast Guard’s national emergency management plan is out-of-date, and the organization has not fully assessed its response capacity in over a decade.

Although Transport Canada assesses private sector response organizations to verify their readiness to respond to spills, a similar process is not in place for the Coast Guard.

We also found that because the Coast Guard does not have a reliable system to track spills, it cannot accurately determine the number of spills that occur each year, their size and their environmental impacts.

We note several areas of concern, from incomplete risk assessments to out-of-date emergency plans. These must be addressed to ensure that the federal government is ready to respond to any ship-source oil spill occurring in Canadian waters.

In chapter 2 we examine how Environment Canada is tracking the quality and quantity of Canada’s freshwater resources through its long-term, fresh water monitoring programs. Environment Canada has been running the federal government’s water monitoring programs for 40 years, yet it has not taken such basic steps as defining its responsibilities and responding to the threats to Canada’s water resources that it itself has identified.

Environment Canada is not monitoring water quality on most federal lands, and it does not know what monitoring, if any, is being done by other federal departments on those lands.

The department has assessed the changing risks that threaten Canada’s freshwater resources, but it has not adjusted its monitoring networks to respond to industrial development, climate change and population growth in certain regions.

Environment Canada should update its assessment of the threats facing Canada’s water resources, from climate change to impacts on human health, so that it can manage its network to understand and respond to the greatest threats.

In chapter 3, we focus on the federal role in adapting to the impacts of climate change. The government has stated that climate change impacts are inevitable, and are already happening. The health of Canadians and Canada’s natural environment, communities, and economy are vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate, and the government is not ready to respond to them.

The lack of a federal strategy and action plan has hindered departments' efforts at coordinating actions to address the effects of climate change. The departments we selected for analysis have identified the risk they may face because of climate change, but they have taken little concrete action to adapt to the potential impacts. Adapting to climate change requires sustained leadership that includes a federal strategy and plan comprising concrete actions both to inform Canadians of climate impacts and to help them adapt to our changing climate.

Mr. Chair, the final chapter of our annual report is on environmental petitions. The petitions process was created in 1995 to provide Canadians with a simple yet formal way to raise concerns and get answers directly from federal ministers on questions about environmental issues.

We received 18 petitions this year.

Health impacts of environmental issues were once again the topic most often raised, followed by toxic substances, fisheries, and water.

Mr. Chair, I've terminated my opening statement and would be pleased to answer questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Commissioner Vaughan.

Mr. McDonald, you can bring your opening comments.

[Gerard McDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Gerard McDonald, and I'm the assistant deputy minister of safety and security at Transport Canada. I'm thankful for the opportunity to be here today to discuss ongoing improvements to environmental programs and policies that fall under my purview.

My discussion today surrounds chapter 1 of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's report, “Oil Spills from Ships”. I would like to extend my gratitude to the commissioner and his staff, because the report is an integral part of our plan to continuously improve and deliver on our objectives.

With me today are my colleagues from Environment Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. I would like to speak to you about the government-industry partnership known as Canada's marine oil spill preparedness and response regime and its initial response to oil pollution from ships.

Established in 1995, the regime sets out guidelines and a regulatory structure in order to prepare and respond to marine oil spills, and it is based on the “polluter pays” principle.

Transport Canada is the lead regulatory agency, and is responsible for the governance, the overall management, and oversight of the regime.

We play a vital role in monitoring marine activity levels, conduct risks assessments, and make adjustments to the regime as required.

Transport Canada develops and enforces standards to better protect our environment, and through regulations, ensures that the appropriate level of preparedness is available to respond to marine oil pollution incidents in Canada within prescribed time standards and operating environments.

In addition to bringing regulations into effect, Transport Canada strictly enforces pollution prevention regulations through the inspection of ships for compliance with pollution prevention provisions, and through the investigation of pollution incidents.

Transport Canada can also lay charges against anyone who does not comply with the regulations and can issue administrative monetary penalties for being non-compliant with the legislation. Administrative monetary penalties provide a way outside the courts to enforce our laws. They make the Transport Canada enforcement program more effective and in turn can help improve the safety of the marine community, the marine environment, and ultimately the general public.

The partnerships we have in place are instrumental in accelerating the development of mutually beneficial programs, policies, and goals. Canada's national marine oil spill preparedness and response regime is an excellent example of such a partnership. Industry plays a major role in the success of the regime because they have an obligation to ensure an effective level of preparedness and response to an oil spill through compliance with regulatory requirements and successful collaboration with the government. Response to oil spills in Canada is always a combined effort between industry and federal, provincial, and municipal governments and regulators, as well as response organizations.

However, polluters are ultimately responsible for the spills they cause, and remain responsible for the containment and cleanup of a marine oil spill. That is why the Regime is based on the polluter-pay principle.

As one of the partners working with the regime, the Canadian Coast Guard also plays a vital role and will monitor clean-up activities of the polluter, or take over clean-up efforts in situations when the polluter is unknown, unwilling, or unable to respond.

Prevention of oil spills is a priority for the Government of Canada, and the regime has proven to be an extremely effective system that tributes to preventative measures, and ensures an effective response when an oil spill from ships occur.

I want to be very clear when I say that the Government of Canada is well prepared and ready to respond to ship-source oil spills in Canadian waters. We have been doing so for many years, and we will continue to effectively respond to ship-source oil spill emergencies. The regime is a system that ensures cleaner water and enables a timely reaction in the event of an oil spill incident or accident.

I am proud to say that Transport Canada and our partners from both government and industry are committed to continue building on Canada's national marine oil spill preparedness and response regime. We are always working with our partners to improve how this regime functions and, if possible, to provide a more efficient response to oil spills from ships in Canadian waters.

On the recommendation that Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard conduct a national risk assessment related to ship-source oil spills, Transport Canada has pledged to work with our partners to build on risk assessments for all three coasts. Scoping of this risk assessment will begin this year and it will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2011-12.

To speak to the second recommendation, Transport Canada recognizes the need for up-to-date emergency management plans, and has committed to review and update our plans annually.

Transport Canada has recently reviewed our Environmental Prevention and Response National Preparedness Plan. Regarding the recommendation to facilitate a hazardous and noxious substance regime in Canada, we will work with our key partners on this front on developing necessary systems and procedures.

This will complement the work that is already under way to develop a national HNS incident preparedness and response regime. Transport Canada assures Canadians that we are taking action to deliver on our environmental priorities. In light of the recommendations made, we are committed to build on our national marine oil spill preparedness and response regime, as well as risk assessments for preparedness and response efforts to oil spills from ships.

Globalization has opened many markets and increased shipping and trade on a world scale. In turn, this has complicated marine transportation, as factors such as varying activity volumes, vessel types, and increase in the transportation of various hazardous substances are inevitably involved. However, as it stands today, should an HNS incident occur in our waters, the Government of Canada is prepared and ready to respond to ship-source oil pollution. The Canadian Coast Guard, through its national response team, would fulfill a coordination role to monitor the incident and manage cleanup activities. Environment Canada and the industry may also be called upon to contribute to the response efforts.

The complexity of global shipping means there is greater potential for an HNS incident to occur in our waters, which is why there is also a need to work toward the creation of a global framework that can help combat HNS emergencies. Most importantly, a successful global framework will serve as a guiding principle. It will enable Canada to develop an HNS regime to better protect our waters, and in turn it will allow Canada to support conventions and protocols that have been established internationally.

In order to be successful, any regime that Canada develops must be consistent with international conventions and protocols, including the OPRC-HNS protocol, in other words, the protocol on preparedness, response, and cooperation to pollution incidents by hazardous and noxious substances. This will require a great deal of cooperation and coordination at the national and international levels, which will continue to take time to complete.

That being said, work is indeed under way, and some milestones have already been met to move Canada toward an HNS regime.

We examined the chemical regimes of other countries to better understand the complexity of development and application, and we will continue to study what type of chemicals are transported to and from Canada, to help us better define the scope of a successful national framework.

We have invested valuable time to research and analyze related reports and previous initiatives regarding the development of a marine chemical . emergency response regime.

As well, materials to facilitate national consultations have been developed to provide an overview of an HNS regime to stakeholders, and to present the benefits of such a regime.

We are working within Transport Canada and with our government partners on both the accession of the OPRC-HNS protocol and the ratification of the HNS convention on liability and compensation. We have received and are still expecting multiple reports on the trade and traffic of HNS from the marine transportation sector in Canada.

Lastly, we have partnered with the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution to create an HNS educational guide for the general public. The milestones we have been able to achieve add to the fundamental objective of creating a global HNS regime that will help mitigate the environmental impacts of HNS incidents on our water and ensure the protection and safety of the public.

In closing, I look forward to seeing the long-term benefits of having effective regimes in Canada, a national oil spill preparedness and response regime that aims to continuously improve the safety of our marine communities, and better protection of our environment, as well as a global HNS regime that would lead to the development of a national framework in Canada.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I look forward to responding to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Ms. Thomas, you have the floor.

[Jody Thomas, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good afternoon. My name is Jody Thomas, and I'm the deputy commissioner of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today to discuss the first chapter of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's annual report entitled “Oil Spills from Ships”.

I would like to start by thanking the commissioner and his dedicated staff for the recommendations directed at the coast guard in the chapter on oil spills from ships. I would equally like to clarify that the main objective of the audit was to assess the management framework of the coast guard's environmental response program.

The commissioner did not audit the operational delivery of the program or actual environmental response activities related to incidents on the water.

As my colleague from Transport Canada has just explained, Canada's marine oil spill preparedness response regime outlines the framework for industry to be responsible to clean up their own oil spills. Transport Canada is responsible for the regulatory aspects of the regime, while the Canadian Coast Guard is the lead federal agency responsible to ensure an appropriate response to ship-source spills.

In normal situations where a shipowner is responding to a spill, the coast guard will monitor the activities of the shipowner to ensure that actions are taken to the satisfaction of the Government of Canada. However, if a shipowner is either unwilling or unable to respond, or if he is unknown, the coast guard will take action to ensure there is an appropriate response, either using our own equipment or through a private company such as a response organization.

The Canadian Coast Guard responds to an average of 1,300 pollution incidents per year and works with federal, provincial, and industry partners to ensure an appropriate response to all incidents. To date, the Canadian Coast Guard has responded to every pollution event of which it has been notified.

This summer, in addition to responding to the grounding of two vessels in the Arctic, the coast guard responded to 86 reported marine pollution events nationally between August 28 and September 15.

Canadians can be assured that if faced with a major spill, the Canadian Coast Guard will provide all available resources and cooperate with its federal, provincial, industry, and international partners to help minimize the impacts to the marine environment.

Overall, the Canadian Coast Guard agrees with the commissioner’s recommendations for improvements to its administrative processes related to the environmental response program.

Work is underway to make improvements in the areas of risk assessment, updating emergency management plans, and establishing national procedures for documenting results of spill responses.

To effect this work, within coast guard we have created a new environmental response branch under the leadership of a dedicated director. As well, the coast guard and Transport Canada have begun, as you've heard, a scoping exercise to update previous risk assessments.

Further, while the audit notes that several coast guard governance documents are not up to date, as part of our day-to-day business we have made management decisions to ensure response equipment is strategically positioned in locations based on our current and evolving understanding of risk. Risk is not static, and neither is our approach. For example, in Placentia Bay, the coast guard has placed caches of first response equipment commensurate with an increase in vessel tanker traffic.

The coast guard will have a national environmental response strategy in place by spring 2011. This strategy will be supplemented by the development of a national response policy and plans for directing Canadian Coast Guard efforts, including those related to a major incident, and will establish a periodic review process to ensure that its national and regional emergency management plans remain accurate and relevant. This review process will be in place by spring of 2012.

The Coast Guard will continue to improve our management processes and we will continue to ensure that the quality environmental protection measures the Canadian public has come to expect from this national institution continue to be strengthened

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

Mr. Keenan, you can begin your opening remarks.

[Michael Keenan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak to the standing committee about the report tabled in Parliament yesterday by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I would also thank the commissioner for his report. I welcome his input because it is important to effectively implement the federal government's environmental policies and programs.

I am going to briefly outline action by Environment Canada that is either already underway or planned to address the issues that the commissioner raised in the second and third chapters.

With respect to chapter 2, entitled “Monitoring Water Resources”, Environment Canada has implemented a strong, comprehensive approach to protect Canada's waters and has taken concrete and measurable actions to implement that approach. The department's plan includes investments in monitoring, water science, research and technology, cleanup of problem areas, as well as building key partnerships. For example, through the action plan for clean water, Environment Canada supports investments to clean up and restore Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe, and several areas of concern in the Great Lakes. The department also continues to work with the Quebec government to protect the St. Lawrence. Environment Canada, along with its partners, is also developing wastewater system effluent regulations to phase out the dumping of untreated and undertreated sewage into Canadian waterways.

The department has reviewed the commissioner's recommendations and officials have already begun taking steps to address the issues raised.

First, Environment Canada will update the inventory of federal lands and waters of federal interest. Second, the department will review and improve criteria used to assess water monitoring needs and on an ongoing basis will continue to share information with federal stakeholders. Third, Environment Canada will work with other federal departments, including the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, to clarify and document roles and responsibilities for long-term water quality and quantity monitoring. In addition, the department plans to use the 2008 World Meteorological Organization guidelines, as well as other benchmarks as appropriate, for water monitoring networks.

Environment Canada will continue to improve reporting of the status of water quality through the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program and by using the water quality index set out by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Finally, the department will maintain its national ISO certification and continue to apply the performance measurement principles of “plan, do, check, and improve” to water quantity monitoring. We will continue to incorporate best regional practices into departmental water quality monitoring activities across the country.

With respect to chapter 3, “Adapting to Climate Impacts”, Environment Canada agrees with all the recommendations and is working toward addressing them.

To provide context, in 2007 the government announced an investment of $85.9 million in adaptation programming. Investments went toward research to improve climate change scenarios in Canada and developing pilot alert and response systems to protect the health of Canadians from infectious disease, to name a few. For example, throughout this programming, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is funding initiatives to assist northerners in assessing key vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation. Natural Resources Canada is also developing and disseminating management tools in supporting regional adaptation programs.

Internationally, Canada is investing $45 million this fiscal year for adaptation programming as part of the $400 million in fast-start financing under the Copenhagen Accord to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change.

Departmental officials have outlined a strategy in response to the commissioner's recommendations and have begun to take steps to address the issues raised.

While individual departments continue to develop adaptation tools and best practices according to their primary areas of expertise, Environment Canada will establish an interdepartmental committee to share these tools and best practices across the federal government. Environment Canada has also taken steps to identify the adaptation measures necessary to prepare the department for risks that climate change presents for its areas of responsibility. Lastly, Environment Canada will build on previous and ongoing interdepartmental work to develop a federal adaptation policy framework.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, departments are building on their activities in relation to the environment through credible science, successful partnerships, and a commitment to high-quality service delivery to Canadians.

My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer questions at the committee's pleasure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Keenan.

I want to thank all of you for your opening comments and staying under the time limit.

We've opened it up to questions. I would just remind witnesses that members only have a set schedule in which to ask questions. The first round is seven minutes; the second round is five minutes. So I ask that all witnesses keep your responses very succinct and to the point.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to ask the commissioner about the fact that there is one federal water monitoring station in the Athabasca River. Am I understanding correctly?

[Scott Vaughan]

One of the exhibits we have in chapter 2, Mr. Chair, is in the northern Athabasca River. So the context is that in 2001 Environment Canada identified as a threat to human health toxic pollutants from the oil sands projects area. Within the northern Athabasca region, Fort McMurray and northwards, there is one federal water quality monitoring station. It's located 150 kilometres north of the oil sands projects. It was established in the late 1970s. It was established to measure effluents from the pulp and paper sector.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So it doesn't deal with the oil sands industry, then.

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct. Although I stand to be corrected, what we've said in the chapter is that the station that is there is established to measure effluents from pulp and paper.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I see.

We've been trying to focus the government on water quality issues related to the oil sands for quite a while now, and under duress, the government finally named a panel to look at this, but I don't know when it will report publicly. The response we've had from the government for the last two or three years is, “Look, it's not our problem. We have an agreement with the province. We've devolved this to the province, and it so happens that the province has devolved it to private sector laboratories and to industry.” And so on and so forth.

So is this really an important issue that there's only one federal water quality monitoring station in the Athabasca, and its mission isn't to measure pollution from the oil sands, one of the biggest industries in the world, it's to measure pollution from the pulp and paper industry, which has cleaned up its act since regulations were adopted about 15 years ago? Is this issue a true federal issue, or is it just a red herring?

[Scott Vaughan]

What we would say in the chapter, and you've alluded to it, is that this is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces have a very strong role in water monitoring. We're not able to look at the capacity of provinces on water monitoring, either quality or quantity, so what we've said is this. Within the scope of our responsibilities, what is the federal presence in water monitoring in that area?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Are you suggesting there's really no role for the federal government in monitoring the Athabasca for oil sands pollution? If you are, then I don't know why, respectfully, Commissioner, you raise the issue of there being only one station.

[Scott Vaughan]

I think it's a broader issue. What we've said is that it would be important for Environment Canada that they have identified some risks. That was one area, one priority, where they have said there is risk to human health from those pollutants. They have responsibility under CEPA, for example--direct responsibility under CEPA--for managing those pollutants; therefore, we've said, based on their own risk assessment, the facts today are that there is one station.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

There should be more, obviously.

Do you think the fact that the federal government doesn't know which of its departments is monitoring water quality on federal lands is a result of the fact that there's no federal water strategy in this country? I mean, if there were a federal water strategy, things would coalesce, people would start to really focus on the issue, and we might have more information within the federal government itself about what's going on with water on federal lands.

[Scott Vaughan]

One of the things we did say was that 40 years does seem to be enough time to clarify who is responsible for what. And we've said that to date there are basic questions in terms of federal responsibility in this area.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

On first nations water quality, there are 12 monitoring stations in 3,000 first nations. I've been told--and I'm not an expert--that the quality of drinking water on first nations is a function of the quality of the water source. Does that mean we're really not too concerned if we have only 12 stations out of 3,000? Does that mean the federal government isn't really too concerned about the quality of the water source? And is that perhaps one of the reasons we have so much trouble in this country delivering clean water to first nations?

[Scott Vaughan]

We had an audit presented to the House of Commons in 2005. It identified significant, serious problems with the quality of drinking water on first nations reserves. The Auditor General will present an audit this spring that will revisit and update that issue.

But it is important to the extent that we looked at the long-term water quality monitoring. There's often a long route for water between lakes or rivers and the tap. There's filtration. There are different ways in which water is treated, in many areas, before it is consumed directly at the tap.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What I have been told by experts is that the kind of filtration system you build is often engineered as a function of the quality of the source water. So if you don't know the quality of the source water, then you're not going to build the right system, and that's why we have brand new drinking water filtration plants on first nations reserves and they aren't functioning. They're idle because they just don't work, because, obviously, we haven't done our homework.

In terms of the possibility of oil spills and so on, has Transport Canada looked at the issue around certification of ship pilots on the Great Lakes? I know there's a system along the St. Lawrence such that if a ship comes in, you have to put an experienced pilot on the ship as it goes through the St. Lawrence, but once you get to the Great Lakes, you don't have to do that, nor do the private ship pilots have to be certified. Are you looking at that issue? I think the transport department has been dragging its feet on that issue for a quite a while. As a matter of fact, I think you were criticized by the Auditor General in one of her reports on that specific issue, on that specific inaction.

[Gerard McDonald]

Thank you for that question.

We have been looking quite extensively into the issue of certification of pilots on the Great Lakes.

I should clarify that presently all international ships that enter the Great Lakes do require that a pilot be on board. It was only the question of domestic ships and their need to carry a pilot. Right now, the way the regulation is written, certain domestic ships, if their masters are seen to have taken a prescribed number of trips on the Great Lakes over the past three years, are allowed to do their own pilotage.

We were, as you correctly state, criticized by the Auditor General for this--as was the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, I should add. We've been working very closely with the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, the ship owners, and the pilots to come to an acceptable regime to allow for the certification of domestic masters on Canadian ships on the Great Lakes. And we would hope to be able to prepublish a regulation early in the new year in that regard.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired.

Monsieur Ouellet, vous avez la parole.