Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have learned a new French word today and I will try to use it. I want to congratulate the government and all the people who contribute to the écologisation of government operations and federal buildings.
I want to follow on a little bit with my colleague's questioning about federal buildings and eco-retrofits. We're in the middle of an economic crisis. We have a government that is looking to spend an awful lot of money very quickly, and in fact the very quickly part is of particular importance. We have in opposition raised some real concerns about the timing of some of these projects getting out there, some of the challenges with infrastructure money getting out the door, but we also have a very strong understanding...and you yourself said earlier that more can always be done.
We have been advocating for some time an increased level of eco-retrofits of federal buildings, enhancing the expenditure on that. So at this particular time it seems logical that this be an area where the government spend money, and in addition there would be the long-term taxpayer money savings that energy efficiency would engender.
My question is this. When you say more can always be done, and in the context of a government looking for--to use an overused term--shovel-ready projects, where are you in hypothetically being able to use money to do significant eco-retrofitting of buildings, over and above your existing plans? Would you be able to use significant government expenditure now to accomplish some of these things in a relatively short timeframe?