Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 8th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next I have Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to be very clear in saying that your ruling indicated that the question raised was related to a matter of privilege but that there has been no ruling made that a violation of privilege has been found. In fact, you made no such ruling. The motion moved by Mr. Dhaliwal was to invite a witness who may have some information related to this, as he was cited in the email provided by Mr. Kmiec, which indicated that the question of privilege was being raised. Having him come before the committee as soon as possible to answer questions related to the question of privilege is I think a wise thing to do and a valid thing to do.

That said, where we are at today is that a violation of privilege has not been established. I don't think there has been one, and I think it is quite plausible that the information provided when citing the witness, Mr. Randall Emery, may well have been gathered from a variety of sources and put together to make it seem like he had received the amendment package outside of receiving it from the clerk as we did.

Getting clarity on that would be useful. However, I just want to reiterate the point that no violation of privilege has been established at this committee; nor do I necessarily believe that all committee members think a violation of privilege has been established.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I just want to clarify that, as chair, I have no power to make that assumption. What we can do is report. We are in that process in regard to what was raised by Mr. Kmiec. This motion, which has been moved by Mr. Dhaliwal, relates to that. That is why we are dealing with this motion.

I have Mr. Dhaliwal next and then Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

We're just going off the motion. I thought we were working on only the motion, but when it comes to clause-by-clause and all this, first things first: It's not only you who cannot make the decision regarding privilege. The committee cannot make this decision either. The committee can only send a report. The Speaker is the one who makes the decision. When it goes to the Speaker, the question of privilege takes precedence over everything else, but in committee, we can start and continue to work on different things we need to do.

I think we should focus only on the motion right now. Then we can go to other stuff like clause-by-clause and whatnot. That should be a separate issue.

Let's finish the wording on this motion and then go from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Yes, we have a motion and we have to deal with that before we proceed any further.

I have a speaking list. Once we have exhausted the speaking list, we will vote on the subamendment that has been moved by Mr. Redekopp and then go on the main motion as amended or not.

Next on the list is Mr. Genuis, and then it's Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to respond to a couple of comments that were made.

Ms Kwan is right that the chair has not ruled on the question of privilege, but that's simply a correct description of the jurisdiction of the chair. The chair does not rule on questions of privilege. The chair has made a ruling that is in effect as far as the chair can go in acknowledging the seriousness of this matter and its relation to privilege.

What is appropriate, then, is for the committee to forward the issue onward in a timely manner for a further adjudication determination. I think that needs to happen quickly. The committee needs to proceed in a way that accords with a recognition of the seriousness of the issue. That means, as the amendment says, having the hearing for witnesses right away. As we're going to propose, it means preparing the report and allowing the committee to move on.

The issue is that one can't simply go back to the issue from which the privilege question arose. It's legitimate for a member to have the opinion that there wasn't a violation of privilege. That's an opinion. That's an opinion I disagree with, but it's an opinion.

The point is, given the recognition of the seriousness of this, we can't go back to that item until the matter is considered and resolved. That's why I think it's important to first adopt the motions we need to adopt today, to hear from the witness, to proceed with the report and then to allow the ruling to happen. This is the flow that needs to take place.

Again, it's an intricate piece when you come to privilege questions, but everybody has a role to play. The Speaker would make a finding of a prima facie case. However, even then, if the Speaker makes that finding, that typically refers it to a committee.

All of these are steps in the process. I think making that happen quickly, in the proper order, is what we're saying needs to happen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

To clarify for all members, Mr. Dhaliwal's motion has not passed yet. We had an amendment that was voted down, and now we have another amendment. That's what we are debating.

Next will be Ms. Rempel Garner and then Mr. Redekopp.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

On Mr. Redekopp's amendment about having the witness proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal attend the committee at the next meeting and why this is important.... Again, this is not partisan. This is just my perspective as a legislator. Right now, in the review of this bill, we are considering amendments that are allowable because of a special motion in the House of Commons that allows this committee to consider amendments that are far beyond the original scope of the bill. It went through the House of Commons.

These amendments are highly technical. They affect the scope in which citizenship can be conferred to people. To date, the debate on these amendments with officials has been about asking a lot of questions on impact.

The amendments that have been brought forward weren't shared with all members of the committee to start with. We have been trying to do our due diligence, step by step, with the officials to understand the impact. Also, we understand that at the heart of this bill there is broad consensus, but the amendments are broad.

My concern as a legislator, and why privilege has to be dealt with first, is this. If somebody outside of the committee, as the chair has noted, received these amendments in such a way that wasn't in accordance with the rules, and we haven't disposed of this and are trying to dispose of this, then it raises questions about the impact, the scope and the intent of the amendments. That's why privilege exists. It's not a “gotcha” moment. It's a safeguard to ensure that the legislative process is followed appropriately.

Mr. Dhaliwal, I'm assuming, is asking this person to come to committee so he can understand what happened. I would like to know as well. However, we can't go forward and continue to look at amendments that might be impacted by a potential breach of privilege. I think that's what my colleagues are saying here.

If my colleagues want to follow along in everybody's favourite green book—here's a plug for a bestseller on amazon.ca—page 154 deals with this issue. Just to clarify for my colleagues, I want to summarize everything that's happened to date. It starts off outlining the scope of what the chair can and can't do:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege....

This is what our chair did with Mr. Kmiec last week. That's step one. Again, this relates to the sharing of confidential amendments outside of the committee during clause-by-clause.

It goes on to say:

The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons.

What I believe the chair has said here—and it's my understanding—is that this matter does in fact touch on privilege. That's what has happened today.

It continues:

If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege...the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House.

I'm assuming that my colleague is inviting this fellow in the motion because it is of substance to our determination on this issue. Because the matter of privilege that is being considered potentially touches on the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, we have to dispose of this. The committee has to decide whether or not it's privilege before we move on.

That would be my interpretation here. I think we can dispose of this quickly, I really do, but that is why my colleague is calling for this. Let's get this person here, let's question him and let's dispose of the issue. That's where my colleague Ms. Kwan has a difference of opinion on what happened, but because the chair has ruled as she did today, it is now our responsibility to deal with this as the first matter in front of our committee. This is one of those moments where....

From time to time in committees, you'll see members of all political stripes using procedural tactics for one thing or another, but in this instance, that's not the case. This is a matter that materially impacts how this committee.... We're legislators. We're making laws. I'm giving an impassioned non-partisan speech, but we have to consider whether or not privilege was broken, because it has an impact on how we are debating amendments.

These are the sorts of things that lawyers look at down the road. We should make sure that in all of our deliberations of law and the legislative process, we are adhering to procedure so that we are respecting the structural integrity of how Parliament functions and works. I ask my colleagues to play it by the book on this one, I really do.

Let's get this guy here, let's dispose of this and then let's move on to the clause-by-clause review. I think that's reasonable. That would give everybody, regardless of how they feel about this issue, some comfort that we're handling this matter with appropriateness and transparency. That would be my preference, so yes to my colleague Mr. Redekopp's motion. We have to dispose of this.

Thank you, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next on the list is Mr. Redekopp, and then it's Mr. Maloney.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My colleagues Ms. Rempel Garner and Mr. Genuis were talking about timeliness, essentially. That is the basis of what I am talking about in my amendment. I want to reiterate—it's what my colleague was just speaking about—that this is a very important, pertinent issue that we need to deal with as quickly as possible.

I'm concerned that the way the motion is written doesn't convey that. In fact, it doesn't even mention this issue. It mentions Bill S-245.

That's my concern. We need to do something to put a little more teeth, if you will, into this motion so that we make sure it's done in a timely manner and as quickly as possible. The next meeting would be the one to do it at. For all the reasons that have been stated already, we need to deal with this first, or as quickly as we possibly can. It does affect what we do in some other deliberations potentially.

We've had a lot of very good questions. Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to discuss a lot of the NDP amendments with the NDP. That's partly why we ask a lot of questions of the department officials who are here and who are probably bored out of their minds at the moment.

We appreciate your being here and the answers you have given so far.

It's important that we ask those questions about the bill. However, we also have to be careful that there aren't improper influences happening to us as well. We've all had different people contacting us about this bill. It's one thing if somebody has an opinion and they share it with us or with our office, but if that person has been privy to very detailed information about amendments, it can change things. It can impact, in an unfavourable way, what we choose to do, potentially.

I know there are particular stakeholders who have been phoning us repeatedly, sometimes multiple times a day. That isn't necessarily helpful for us. Some of those things can be wrongly influenced by somebody having information that they shouldn't have.

That's the core issue, getting back to the privilege we're speaking of today. That's why I think it is important that we put a time condition on this. It's so that we don't end up at the end of June and find out that we don't have a chance to get the witness here.

That's why I want to see us have some kind of time limit so we get this done very quickly. My preference would be to do it right away, this week, and then we can dispose of it and, as we said, move on to the substance of the bill. As we all know, there is a deadline to get that done, which I believe is June 15. We still have some time and that's a good thing. However, we do need to get that done. That's the timeliness factor and why that needs to be done quickly.

I also want to address the question of whether there has been a breach.

Madam Chair, you rightly stated that you are not the arbiter of that. You do not decide whether there has been a breach, but you decide whether there is enough evidence to support an investigation into that. That's what you've done, and that's good.

There was some mention from Ms. Kwan about the document that was not tabled, and that was the choice of the person who had the document. From what I understand, in that document—I think Ms. Kwan alluded to some of this—there were very specific references to specific amendment numbers. Even if somebody generally understood that government amendments are typically numbered G-1, G-2, G-3 and so on—even if they understood that basic concept—they would have no way of knowing, for example, that G-3 is specifically about this versus G-5 being about that. They wouldn't know that. That level of information, which is what I recall seeing in the document, is very specific. To me, that is very indicative of a potential breach. Somebody, somehow, passed that information on to them. That's why I think it's important that this be reviewed in more detail.

The other thing that was in that document, as I recall, was a bit of a strategy: that A is going to happen and then B will happen, or there will be a motion for this and then an amendment for that. There was a bit of a plan, if you will, that had been created and devised.

That is essentially what was in this document, which, when it was received, seemed a bit interesting. Then, lo and behold, when we had our last meeting, the plan that was outlined in that document was in fact exactly what happened. Clearly this person not only had access to information they shouldn't have had, but also had access to the strategy, if you will, that was going to be used by the person moving that.

I'm not sure that was necessarily part of a breach. I don't know. That's what we'll have to study, because that part I'm not exactly clear about. Certainly having some of that information, I believe, was clearly a breach of privilege. However, as was said before, we around this table certainly reserve the right to agree or disagree that it was a breach, because at this point we haven't had the full disclosure. I also believe that's why it's so important to have this witness come, because they're the one who knows. They know the answers to these questions, and every one of us needs the opportunity to ask these questions to find out the truth about where this came from.

It's not so much about punishing somebody necessarily, because there could be legitimate faults in the way that some members run their offices. I don't mean that in a critical way. It could be an legitimate hole that needs to be plugged, if you will.

I love aviation, so I often watch—and some of you may have watched—shows in which there is a plane crash and they describe all the things that happened that led up to that plane crash. Often there are multiple things. It's not about assigning blame so much as it is about figuring out what went wrong and plugging the hole so that next time it doesn't happen.

That's kind of the same principle here. It's not so much about assigning blame to somebody. It's about figuring out why it happened and what flaws, if you will, there were in the system and then figuring out a way to plug those holes, to fix those flaws so that it doesn't happen again. I believe that's really important and a really important outcome of this.

That summarizes some of my thoughts for now. As I said, the main thing I want to do is make sure we have a timeliness associated with this so that we don't end up just delaying it and not dealing with it. I think that is very important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Just so that all members stay on that point, we are debating the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Redekopp.

I have two more people on the speakers list. Mr. Maloney is next.

Mr. Maloney, welcome to CIMM. I hope you are enjoying the meeting.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you. I am thoroughly enjoying this meeting. It's fascinating, and you are discussing a very good point.

Mr. Redekopp, you should watch the show Mayday if you're interested in aviation. That's the one you were talking about.

I agree with what Mr. Redekopp said insofar as this needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. From what I can gather from listening to people around the table, everybody else thinks so too. I disagree that it has to be done now. If we look at the section from page 154 that Ms. Rempel Garner read, the words, taken literally, do not say that the ruling precludes this committee from proceeding with the clause-by-clause. In fact, my interpretation would be that it says the exact opposite.

What it says is that once you have made your ruling, Madam Chair, we can then consider having it go to the Speaker, which you have done. Procedurally, what we have to deal with right now is Mr. Redekopp's amendment and Mr. Dhaliwal's motion, and that's where we are.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Up next we have Mr. Genuis, and then it's Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm respectfully disagreeing with the direction of Mr. Maloney's comment.

I just remembered there's a rule when there's a violation of privilege: You have to bring the matter up at the earliest reasonable opportunity. It's not precisely defined in the Standing Orders, but the spirit of it is that you can't feel your privilege is violated, think about it for two weeks and then come back and move the issue. Privilege is supposed to have an element of urgency to it. There's something happening that is impacting the ability of members of Parliament to do their jobs. If it's an issue of privilege, it naturally follows that there's an urgency to it.

I'm going back over my memory of the privilege issues we've dealt with. One issue was that certain members were impeded in coming to the House for a vote because there were certain security protocols associated with it. I think a foreign leader was visiting. With the new security protocols, they were not able to get to the House to vote. Therefore, a privilege issue was raised because they were prevented from exercising their privilege, which is to vote. The urgency of that matter was in the fact that people were being prevented from voting, so it had to be dealt with right away. There are votes going on all the time. If you put that issue off and say, “Well, yes, people are being prevented from voting, but we'll deal with it in two months”, in the intervening time, you have the continuation of the problem, which is people being prevented from exercising their privilege.

The House, right now, is debating a question of privilege involving foreign interference. It's obviously an urgent matter because foreign interference didn't just happen once to one member at one point in time. It's an ongoing concern. There are ongoing issues that have to be resolved as soon as possible, which is why members are required to bring things forward right away. In the House, on matters of privilege, privilege overrides everything. It is unlike everything else. It even overrides private members' business.

Speaker Regan previously ruled that, if the government adjourns debate on a matter of privilege, it comes back right away. It has a unique character within the Standing Orders in that the House is necessarily seized with it until it's dealt with. I think people understand that. It's because of the urgency and importance of the matter, and because of the importance of it being dealt with right way.

I don't know whether the process for consideration of that matter is as formally structured in the rules at the committee level, but I think it's important for us to act with an appreciation of what privilege means and what the practices of the House can teach us about our practices here in committee. If the matter is urgent and necessarily overrides the other things going on, then at committee we should say it is important, it is urgent and it is impacting the privileges of members.

It's particularly impacting the privileges of members in the context of clause-by-clause consideration of a particular bill. We need to understand what happened and how it can be resolved if we're going to take seriously the resolution of that privilege matter. It has to happen in that sequence and in a way that acknowledges the operating principles we get from the House, which are urgency, primacy and the need for the privileges of members of Parliament to be protected in order for members to do their jobs. If I don't have my privilege protected, I can't do my job and properly move things forward. For this committee to function, that privilege needs to be respected. That is a precondition for all the things that have to happen next. I think the principle of the amendment is to say, yes, we need to hear from the witness right away, because we need to get towards a resolution.

Mr. Redekopp has put forward an amendment. I understand it might come forward in a separate form that deals with the privilege issue. The other issue I have in general with this motion—I support it and let's move it forward—is this: I don't see this motion directly addressing the issue of privilege. It just says we're going to hear from a witness who is going to help us enumerate some facts. It doesn't actually lay out the process for resolving the privilege issue.

That's what we're supposed to be doing. Once the important issue of privilege has been determined, the committee, just as would happen in the House, must then respond to the issue of privilege accordingly. That's the right thing to do.

That's consistent with the long-running practice and traditions of the House, but it's not just the right thing to do because it's the traditional thing. It's the right thing to do because it's what protects the ability of our institutions to function on the matter that comes next.

First we establish that we've resolved whatever considerations or issues relate to the protection of the privileges of members, and then we can build on that secure foundation of privilege being respected and recognized to go on to the next step. It seems to me that the sooner the committee is able to take those steps, the sooner the committee is able to go on to next steps, so I would encourage that kind of prioritization.

I'll leave my comments there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I have four people on the speaking list. I have Ms. Rempel Garner and then Ms. Kwan.

Next is Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I want to respond to my colleague, Mr. Maloney, and walk through that line of thinking.

Mr. Maloney is right in that it's now the committee's job to determine whether or not this is a matter of privilege. That's what we're dealing with right now. Why I think the witness needs to come right away is that if he doesn't, I think I would raise another matter of privilege, and I want to walk you through my logic on that.

What we're discussing here is that, potentially, while a bill was in committee stage consideration and the potential amendments were in confidence—which is actually like a sacred part of the legislative process, and there are rules around it—these amendments were circulated to third parties without the knowledge or consent of the committee. There potentially could have been third party input during that stage of committee review, which is highly problematic. I don't understand if there are lobbying concerns here or what the issue was, but it's problematic, and there are rules around that process for a reason.

If we don't have this person here right away.... Let's game this out. Let's say that we don't have this person come before the committee, we don't deal with the privilege issue and we don't dispose of it. Let's say we get through the amendments and we refer the bill back to the House. There are procedural questions—and I would look for an interpretation—and potentially legal questions on the validity of those amendments should we rule on privilege later.

If we don't have this person come to the next committee and we don't dispose of this, then to me that's a breach of my privilege. This is why it needs to be done right away. Again, going back to why we decided to put that whole motion together, it was to deal with this at once so we can move on.

I'll just put my concern on the table, and perhaps my colleagues can allay my fears. I am concerned that if we don't have this person at the next committee, they're never going to come. We're going to get through all of these amendments and we won't dispose of this until after the bill has gone back to the House. With partisan hats off for a second, can you imagine, colleagues on the other side, if we had done that and leaked it to a third party group? There would have been hell to pay, and rightly so, because there's a reason we have these processes in place.

Look, we've been asking technical questions on very technical amendments that have basically been table-dropped on us by colleagues. We are trying to get this bill through as quickly as possible. These are really technical and big-impact amendments to a significant piece of.... Honestly, the Citizenship Act is more complex than the Income Tax Act in some ways. I am trying to review this to weigh, on balance, whether or not this is in the best interests of my community, which is what we are paid to do.

We need to know if there was a breach of privilege. I would probably be prepared to raise another point of privilege, I think, if we are not having this person come, to dispose of the matter of privilege. People can agree or disagree if there was one, but we have to put it to bed for the sanctity of the process we're working on right now. That's my two cents.

I would ask colleagues if the intent.... I just want to know: Do the Liberals want him to come to the next meeting? If it's no, then they will vote against this. That tells me they do not want to deal with the matter of privilege. That is highly problematic for me, not as a partisan but as a legislator. My colleagues opposite never want to be in this position where they are considering amendments to a substantive piece of legislation with a matter like this in front of them. It has impacts for our constituents.

If we're not going to deal with this, then why go through the charade? If you want to deal with it, have this person at committee the next time. If you don't want to deal with this and don't think there's a matter of privilege, then let's deal with that too.

My sense is that my colleagues want to get to the bottom of this. If that is in fact the case, let's accept my colleague's amendment and have this person at our next meeting, which I'm sure our lovely chair can schedule, because she always does that well. Then we can move on with life and hopefully get this bill through expeditiously.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next on the list is Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, please go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have any trouble with the witness appearing at the next committee meeting. There seems to be quite a lot of assumption that, somehow, it's not what people want. I would love for the guy to show up. In fact, I would love it if he actually showed up today so we could get to the bottom of it. That said, I don't have any trouble whatsoever with him showing up at the next committee meeting.

The other thing I want to point out is that it seems that at this committee, there are always these questions of privilege. I recollect a situation in the past where a question of privilege was raised about an email sent that included government or ministerial officials. I recall I moved a motion in that instance to invite the law clerk to come and speak to committee—which took some time, by the way. We eventually had that come before committee, but we were able to still carry on with the work we needed to do while we waited for that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Next I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As usual, Madam Chair, I'm going to play the role of Quebecois sovereignist trying to find a compromise between the federalist parties on Canadian citizenship legislation. Described that way, it may seem funny, but that is nonetheless the situation in which we find ourselves.

I'm trying to find the common sense in it all. I just want to make my colleagues aware that, if the witness does not appear quickly, as per the Conservatives' request, we're going to end up with a committee that doesn't function. If we don't consider their proposal, we're going to lose more time than we thought we could gain.

I suggest my Liberal and New Democrat friends agree with the Conservatives. Let's get the witness to appear. Afterwards, we can delve into the essence of the work we have to do as a committee, which means completing study of Bill S‑245.

As usual, my federalist friends, your good friend the sovereignist is trying to find a compromise for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I appreciate that.

I have two more people next on the speaking list: Mr. El-Khoury and Mr. Dhaliwal.

Go ahead, Mr. El-Khoury.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

You can take me off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. El-Khoury.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll remove myself from the speaking list because of what was said by my colleague. You can give my turn to another colleague.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, you also don't want to speak. Okay.

Seeing no further hands raised, we can vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Redekopp.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have the motion, as amended, moved by Mr. Dhaliwal.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.