Thank you.
If we create an act, we may as well define things as clearly as we can. The appeal tribunal — let's call it that — is indeed an option, but we try to use that as little as possible. The rules and laws should be very clear.
I will now address Ms. Péloffy.
I don't have a question for you, Ms. Péloffy, but I have to admit that I was very disappointed by one of your comments. Your are the only one to have spoken about the Harper government. Everyone who is here, around the table, is here to build the future. We are looking forward. I feel I must tell you that certain things were achieved in the past. I liked Mr. Doelle's comment that the act that was brought in 25 years ago was a step forward. The time has come for us to take other steps. I thank all of the parliamentarians who are working to do that. I didn't like your comment. I simply want to say, concerning Mr. Harper's record, that it is not a blank page; in fact, we would need more than a page to list all of the actions taken. I'd like you to hear this message.
As for representation, please know that the people gathered here represent all of Canada. I am very proud to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represents some of the municipalities in Quebec. Other associations did so as well all throughout the hearings.
In addition, I must remind you that it was the Harper government — which you like to refer to — which, with scientists, did the research that led to the GHG targets the current government is applying. The work must have been well done, since the Liberals are using it.
Thank you very much, Ms. Péloffy. I am pleased to have been able to share that comment with you.
My third question is for Ms. Risbud.
Does the current process respect the principles and objectives of the law?