Debates of May 8th, 2007

Opposition motion--Gas Prices

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. The motion we have introduced today concerns a very serious problem: the rise in gas prices. We must not forget that this has wide-reaching effects and is often very harmful to our economy. For example, the increase has a direct impact on the manufacturing industry, which is a major employer in my regional county municipality, in the county where I work and throughout Quebec. I hardly need remind this House that this industry is already in serious trouble.

Higher gas prices are driving up production costs and driving down badly needed investments in modernizing our manufacturing plants.

While our manufacturing sector is crumbling, our oil companies are continuing to post record profits, and greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. The combined net profits of the six largest integrated oil companies in Canada reached $12 billion in 2006. This is a $5 billion increase over 2004. Proportionally, profits are 70% higher than in 2004. We understand now that these figures are creating monstrous inflation in Quebec and across Canada.

What is the government doing to address these issues that are so vital to our economy? In both cases, it is using the same logic, which is simply to do nothing. We know that doctrinaire Conservatives believe that the free market can take care of everything and that any government intervention will only prevent the market from generating benefits. Unlike the Conservative government, we believe that it is possible to limit gas price increases, at least partially, which is why the member for Joliette has introduced this motion asking the government to amend the Competition Act so that the Competition Bureau can conduct investigations into the price of gas and the role of refining margins in determining gas prices.

Obviously, we are discussing gas prices today because they have jumped in recent days and weeks. Last week, the price of regular gas at the pump was $1.15 on average. Fluctuations aside, the price of gas is rising steadily in Quebec. In 2004, the average price of regular gas was 85.7¢. In 2005, it reached 96.7¢.

Why has the price of gas gone up? The price at the pump is made up of four main factors: the price of crude oil, which has gone up, taxes, the retailer mark-up and the refining margin.

A thorough analysis of the causes of gas price hikes reveals that the retailer mark-up has remained stable. Taxes have also remained stable. The rising price of crude explains the rising price at the pump to a certain extent, but it is clear that major increases are due in large part to the rising cost of refining oil, which is where big oil companies' outrageous profit margins have increased the most lately.

According to the Association québécoise des indépendants du pétrole, a reasonable profit margin at the refining stage is between 4¢ and 7¢ per litre. In April 2006, that profit margin was 19.5¢, and last Wednesday, it was up to a record-setting 27¢ per litre, the highest ever except for a short period following hurricane Katrina.

To understand this situation, we must remember that in 1990, oil companies downsized their North American refining operations. To cut costs, they closed several refineries.

As a result, supply soon matched demand. Therefore, when technical or weather-related incidents affect refining operations, price hikes are inevitable. That is not all. Slight increases in demand, such as during long weekends, often spur price hikes. For consumers, long weekends and summer vacations are not unexpected events. However, oddly enough, big oil companies never seem to be able to predict these periods and to prepare for them accordingly. They have nothing in reserve, and they tell us that the price increase is due to scarcity. We have seen this happen for years now.

The refining industry's inability—deliberate or otherwise—to respond to unexpected events raises a lot of questions. It is clear to us that the current structure of the oil industry leads to price hikes and market abuses. Although the industry is trying to persuade consumers that they are being treated fairly, consumers are, understandably, not convinced.

In short, one problem remains: there is lack of transparency, hence the importance of the Bloc Québécois motion being presented today. We have to discipline the industry and ensure that no middlemen, the refineries for instance, take advantage of the circumstances. To do so, we propose giving the Competition Act more muscle. For a number of years now we have been calling for this legislation to be changed in order to give the Competition Bureau real investigative power. This bureau could initiate investigations and call witnesses. It could also ensure their protection and study all aspects of the oil industry and propose solutions.

We also propose the creation of a real petroleum monitoring agency. This agency would be responsible for overseeing the industry by collecting and disseminating price data on refined petroleum products for all North American markets, and drafting annual reports on the competitive aspects. To date, the federal government has always refused to do this. These measures I have just listed are solutions that could be applied in the short term.

In the longer term, Quebec needs to take measures to reduce its dependence on oil. All the oil Quebec consumes is imported. In 2006, Quebec imported $13 billion worth of oil, which is up $7 billion in three years. At the same time, Quebec went from a trade surplus to a $7 billion deficit in 2006. The increase in the price of oil alone plunged Quebec into a trade deficit. Oil is making Quebec poorer. In the long term we have to invest in true alternative energies and launch a real initiative to reduce our consumption of oil for transportation, heating and industry.

Finally, I know that the Conservatives will not like these proposals but, in order to stop the oil industry from making us poorer as a society, we must redistribute resources and repeal the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in the oil sands immediately when the price of crude exceeds a threshold of somewhere between $40 and $50. The government announced this measure in its last budget, but it will not come into effect for another three years.

We have to make the oil companies pay for the environmental damage they cause. Refusing to stick to the Kyoto protocol is not going to solve these problems.

On all these matters we have to take action as quickly as possible, in order to save our jobs, our regions and our environment. Most of all, we have to leave room in society for future generations.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Competition Bureau, through the powers given to it under the Competition Act, can now investigate all factors that make up the per litre price of gasoline, and that includes refinery margins. If there is any evidence whatsoever or suspicion of anti-competitive behaviour or collusion, the bureau can deal with it. To date, hearings have been held all over the place. They have been held in this place and in provincial governments. No such evidence has been presented.

Since 1990, the Competition Bureau has conducted six major investigations into allegations of collusion in the gasoline industry. It found no evidence whatsoever of a national conspiracy. Whenever the Competition Bureau has evidence of behaviour that violates the Competition Act, it does not hesitate to take appropriate action.

I give those facts and then I read what the motion tries to do. The motion is trying to give the Commissioner of Competition the power to initiate investigations of the price of gas and the role of refining margins in the determination of the said price. That is it. This has already been done.

Why does the Bloc have a motion on something that has already been done?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member's question proves that he is not in an election campaign.

When there is no support for people who are being gouged by high gas prices, this shows a lack of willingness to help them, and it shows that we are definitely not in an election period.

I will remind the Conservative member of the testimony of Konrad von Finckenstein, Competition Commissioner, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on May 5, 2003. I would like my colleague to hear this, because he has certainly forgotten. At the time, if he was part of the Conservative opposition, he surely took it into account.

I quote:

—while the Bureau's mandate includes the very important role of being an investigator and advocate for competition, the current legislation does not provide the Bureau with the authority to conduct an industry study.

This was in 2003, but nothing has changed since then.

I quote again:

It seems to me that it would be preferable to have a study on the overall situation carried out by an independent body that would have authority, that would be able to summon witnesses and gather information.

He said he did not have the authority to act. I am not the one who said it, nor was it the Bloc Québécois. It was the competition commissioner appearing before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in May 2003.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people back home would recognize the absurdity of the situation we are in here.

We are dealing with a government that is trying to tell Canadians that what they are seeing with their own eyes is not reality. People see a huge spike in prices when they go to the pumps on the Friday afternoon of a long weekend. Yet by Saturday morning, the price has dropped. The government is telling Canadians that is just an aberration, that is just market forces at work. The government is telling Canadians that there is no collusion.

The day after hurricane Katrina hit, there was a 40¢ to 50¢ increase in the price of gasoline. Yet there was no evidence that the hurricane hit any of the reservoirs holding all the gasoline in our communities. People were seeing massive spikes in the price, yet we were being told that this was natural, that there were no unexpected increases.

Many times Canadians have come to us as politicians and told us that they know they are being gouged. They know there is a difference between high prices and gouging. The Conservative government, as well as the previous Liberal government, tell us that gouging does not exist by any stretch of the imagination, that we should just allow the companies to continue on their course.

I would like to ask the hon. member—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Of course, the economy as a whole is threatened when gas prices skyrocket to levels as we are seeing these days. All of our policies, all of our social programs are threatened, because all families are getting poorer.

I know the member's concern for the well-being of families and for fighting poverty. The fact is that, when gas prices rise this much, the portion of a family' budget allocated to gasoline increases. This means less money for food, clothing and activities associated—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is something that is obviously on the minds of Canadians.

We all recognize that with the recent spike in gasoline prices at the pumps Canadians are feeling the pinch. Naturally, when prices rise, Canadians are concerned. There is no question that it impacts people's daily lives and affects their cost of living, and we are concerned with that as well.

That is why we brought in a number of initiatives where we think we can make a difference, such as providing rebates of up to $2,000 for the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles and tax rebates on transit passes to encourage more public transit use.

However, at the end of the day our actions have to be balanced and that is exactly what we have done. We have balanced our actions to ensure that the economy remains strong and that there is growth in the job creation sector to ensure Canadians can enjoy our standard of living, as well as protecting the environment.

I have heard the concerns of many opposition members. I know members across will acknowledge that when the Liberals were in power the Competition Bureau in the last six years conducted an investigation six times. Each and every time it found there was no collusion. If in fact there is information that should be brought forward for a seventh investigation, so be it. That is what the Competition Bureau is for.

If the Bloc is proposing under its original motion in fact to investigate this, the Competition Act and the Commissioner of Competition have all of the powers. Therefore, the hon. member across would also agree that in fact this can be investigated.

It is also important, though, that we do not just focus the whole discussion on the price of gasoline. It is also important that we look at other sources of energy as well, especially in the transportation sector.

We are investing heavily in the fuel cell industry. In fact, we have hydrogen buses running on Parliament Hill. That has happened under this government, something we are very proud of. These are opportunities that not only help the environment but obviously decrease our dependency on oil.

I would like to change the focus of this discussion now to Bill C-288. For those who may not be aware, it is a private member's bill by a Liberal member of Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to impose the Kyoto targets on the Canadian people and economy over the next five years after it was in office for 10 years and did absolutely nothing on this file.

Maybe that is not accurate. I should not say the Liberals did nothing. In fact, they actually made it worse. If they had done nothing, that might have been helpful or at least put us in a position where we would have a fighting chance. Greenhouse gases have risen dramatically under the Liberal government for 10 years to 35%. The Liberals acknowledge that, they know that is a fact and that is the number.

When the Liberals were in government, they did absolutely nothing. That is a fact and they cannot dispute that greenhouse gases skyrocketed. Now they propose a reckless plan. There is no other description for this plan. It is reckless. If they were being truthful with themselves, the constituents and this country, they would acknowledge it. They know it is reckless. There is no other word to describe it. This plan has been looked at by various economists and I will get into more specifics about that in a minute.

Even worse, because members from all of the opposition parties are thinking of purely crass politics and unfortunately it is not working for them, it is not going to work. They are all supporting this Liberal plan and, without question, the price of gasoline will skyrocket.

There is an independent analysis that has been done on this which shows that the price of gasoline will rise by 60%. We can do the math. That is somewhere between $1.60, depending upon which part of the country, up to as high as $2.00.

I am going to read specifically from this report where this analysis was done. I will read from page 21 of “The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business”. This is an independent economic analysis. I think it is very important that this debate stays factual, that we do not try to torque it, and we just put the facts on the table and let the Canadian people judge it. It states:

Prices for transportation fuels would also rise by a large margin--roughly 60% higher relative to BAU. At today's gasoline prices of approximately 90 cents a litre, this would translate into an average price of over $1.40 per litre as a result of the policy.

Those are the facts and the Liberals do not like to hear it. Whether it is in question period or whether it is in the foyer of the House of Commons, they do not like those facts.

We can argue that maybe it is $1.55, $1.65 or $2.05, but there is no question that there would be drastic economic costs to the current direction taken by the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not a balanced approach. It is a reckless approach. Even worse, the NDP and the Bloc are supporting this reckless approach and it must be said.

Let me quote from other parts of this analysis on the Liberal environment plan, Bill C-288. It states on page 18:

The analysis indicates that GDP would decline by more than 6.5% relative to current projections in 2008 as a result of the policy, falling to a level about 4.2% below that of 2007. This would imply a deep recession in 2008, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $51 billion relative to 2007 levels. By way of comparison, the most severe recession in the post World War II period for Canada, as measured by the fall in real GDP, was in 1981-1982.

There is a lot more. We have economists such as Don Drummond who is the senior vice-president and chief economist at the Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group. We have people like Jean-Thomas Bernard, professor, department of economics, Laval University; Christopher Green, professor, department of economics, McGill University; Mark Jaccard, professor, school of resource and environment management at Simon Fraser University; and Carl Sonnen, president of Informetrica Limited.

I stress that this is not the Conservative analysis. This analysis was done by some of the most respected economists in the country. They are saying what would happen. Don Drummond stated:

I believe the economic cost would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s and indeed that is the result your department's analysis shows. Relative to the base case, the level of output declines around 7 per cent.

Christopher Green, professor, department of economics at McGill, said:

I have read the draft on the potential economic costs of meeting the provisions of Bill C-288. I agree with the draft’s main finding, that attempting to meet the provisions of Bill C-288 would be economically costly. Indeed, if anything, that the GDP reductions (costs) would be larger than are estimated by the modeling framework you employed.

These are some of the facts. They cannot be disputed.

I am sure members are fully away that some of the costs that drive up the price of gasoline are market forces. The Liberals had many investigations when they were in power on everything up to the price on the world markets. These are obviously links. We know there are municipal and federal taxes and refinery costs.

It is important to note that what we are really hearing from the opposition members is that they want to regulate the price of gasoline. Where that has been done in the past--

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They are clapping for regulation. I want to note that is not the Conservative members clapping but the NDP members in the House.

Where regulating has been done in the past it has actually resulted in higher gasoline prices. We cannot get involved in regulation.

The Conservative government recognizes that this is a difficult area but we have tried to provide certainty to the industry. This is the first time a federal government has undertaken to regulate both greenhouse gases and emissions. These are very ambitious and aggressive targets. No government, including the previous Liberal government, has undertaken to do this and to the levels that we are doing this.

The industry knows there will be a cost to this but we are providing certainty to the industry. Those are the kinds of things that a government can do to provide certainty to gasoline prices.

As I said earlier in my speech, we are providing incentives of up to $2,000 to Canadians for the purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle. Did the Liberals ever do that while they were in power? No. Did they bring in regulations to regulate greenhouse gases? No. Did they bring in measures to encourage public transit use? No. They did not get the job done. They are now crying foul and yet, in only 15 months of the Conservatives being in office, we are delivering and delivering. We are getting the job done.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

On all those old promises.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I know they do not like the truth. I can hear the Liberals making all kinds of noise on the other side. The previous government failed in so many ways.

Since we are talking about gasoline I will talk about energy, something that is very important to this government. We recognize how important it is that we change our dependency on oil. Right now, globally, we burn about 1,000 barrels of oil a second. If we translate that, we burn globally about 86 million barrels of oil each and every day. That is an enormous amount of oil.

Our government recognizes that we must invest in other forms of energy. We have invested $1.5 billion into renewable energy to bring more energy such as wind, biomass and tidal. Our government installed for the first time a tidal turbine in North America off the coast of Victoria near where I live and it is now producing electricity. The energy is absolutely clean and emission free. There is no pollution. We have invested in small scale hydro.

Those are the types of actions that we taking. Everything our government does is focused on results. We have invested $230 million on a targeted initiative to do research into technology to clean up our conventional energy. These are tangible things that we believe can make a difference, everything from technology for clean coal to taking all the emissions out of coal-fired electricity generation to doing carbon sequestration.

We have launched the Canada-Alberta ecoenergy carbon sequestration task force that will report back to myself before Parliament rises at the end of June on what we need to do to put CO₂ gases back into the ground and what we need to do to construct a CO₂ pipeline.

Those are all initiatives brought in by the Conservative government that will get real results on the environment. I know the Liberals keep talking and complaining but they were in government for 10 years and did not get the job done. In their dying days in office, all of a sudden they had this deathbed conversion that they somehow cared. Quite frankly, that was a little late. Canadians were tired of it and we saw the results in the last election.

All of our initiatives are focused on delivering results. The worst part of of this is that after the Liberal Party did nothing for so long they are coming back with a very reckless approach. There is no other way to describe it. There is no balanced approach. It is important to this government that we recognize the importance to the economy and the importance of jobs to Canadian in every corner of the country, while at the same time delivering strong action on the environment.

The opposition members have brought forward a motion calling for changes to the Competition Act but what they are asking for is completely within the powers of the Competition Act today, and I know the member opposite is well aware of that. In fact, when the Liberals were in office they brought this forward six times and we know the results of that. They do not like the results but those are the results.

I would be the first one to line-up, where we have evidence that suggests that this is being violated, to call for an investigation and ask that it be done aggressively to ensure the violations are pursued with vigour. It is not acceptable.

Our government will continue to work with Canadians by lowering the GST and taxes in general to ensure Canadians have more money but the solution is not to bring in regulations and not to fix the price of gasoline. It must to be market-driven. For anyone to suggest otherwise would actually result in higher gasoline prices.

For those who are following this debate, I would ask that they really look at what all three opposition parties are calling for because this motion is a bit of a smokescreen. They brought in a motion showing that they would like some changes made to the price of gasoline when in fact every opposition party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals, support a policy that would, without question, cause the price of gasoline to rise by at least 60%.

They do not like it. I can hear the moans and groans. Why do they not like it? It is because this number has been put out by some of the country's leading independent economists. Those are the facts. This was not just one economist, this was by some of the leading professors of various departments at universities from right across the country.

It is important for Canadians to realize what all the other parties are pushing for. If they had their way, gasoline prices would rise to $1.60, $1.70 and then up to $2 a litre. That is unacceptable because that would cause serious harm to our economy, something that the Conservative government will not contemplate. We will use a balanced approach where we can ensure we have a strong economy and deliver real reductions for the environment, something that we are doing each and every day.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member mention the economy. I understand that the economy is doing well in western Canada. At the same time, it is being strangled in eastern Canada. I have heard references made to prominent economists. There are prominent consumers who are saying every weekend that gas prices are higher than ever. High prices kill the economy in the west as well as in the east.

Could the member opposite tell me what difference it would make? We know that the tax on the profits made by these companies have been reduced from 27% to 19% since 2003. How can the member believe that a price monitoring agency would adversely affect prices, given that it would have the capacity to summon witnesses? Because that is the main point, for the commissioner to have the power to summon witnesses, who in turn will be required to testify.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want it to be clear that what the member is asking for is a gas monitoring agency, which is just more government bureaucracy that will solve nothing. In fact, the previous government had such agencies but it did not change anything.

This information on the price of gasoline is widely available today from a number of sources. The last thing we need to do is create another large bureaucracy to monitor the price of gasoline and spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to monitor the price of gasoline. That will change nothing.

I must note that the member also talked about how the economy was strong in the west and not so strong in other parts of Canada. Is he suggesting that Quebec's economy is not doing that well? I think the economy is very strong right across Canada and we should be proud of the work that people are doing in every corner and region of the country.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member actually suggesting that when it comes to a monitoring agency that it should be done by, as it is currently done, the very industry itself? The hon. members know that his information is coming from MJ Ervin & Associates whose prime clients are the major oil companies. Is that what he calls transparency or accountability?

I understand the member. He knows the work that we have done on this. He also knows that the report that was written by the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, which is the essence of half of the recommendation that the motion has made here, deals with changing the criminal pricing provisions and turning them into the civil pricing provisions to prevent the kind of activity that took place in his province when ARCO came in and knocked out all the independents and, as a result, in his province today they are paying $1.28 a litre for gasoline when they should be paying $1.15 and not a penny more, taxes included.

Since the hon. member clearly has an idea of where gas prices are, and he thinks he knows where they are, maybe he could tell the House what the wholesale prices are in British Columbia today.

Maybe the hon. member could spend a bit more time getting his head out of the sand and tell us why prices under his watch have gone from an average of 85¢ a litre to $1.15 to $1.28 depending on the region. Maybe he could tell us today--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can hear them howling again. I guess they do not like it when we put it right back on them.

The reality is that in the particular context of this price, it does not matter what energies, what new supplies or what new technologies are there, if they are controlled by the same structural inherent problems of the Competition Act, we will wind up with the same problem. Could he explain himself?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I do know for sure is that the price of gasoline in my province under that member's plan would be over $1.70 a litre today. Those are the facts. That is what would happen in British Columbia. We have a very strong economy--

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

What are the prices today? You don't have a problem with $1.28 a litre?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It is really tough to proceed with the questions and comments period when I cannot hear the minister answer the questions. The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East has already asked a question. If he has another one he should wait until his turn comes around again.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources has a bit of time left to respond to the question. I would ask all members to allow that to happen without interjections.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the member for Pickering—Scarborough East is the one who not two minutes ago said that he would actually ask the opposition for respect so he could ask his question and then launched into that tirade of who knows what.

Those members launched into this tirade because the truth hurts. They used these same economists to evaluate the Liberal plans when they were in power. They used these same economists to evaluate their budgets. Now these same people, who are very independent and who used to validate their work, are saying that these are the absolute facts and the Liberals do not like it because the truth hurts.

That is what Canadians need to realize. They need a balanced approach on this file--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments brief because I know that time has been taken up.

The hon. member talked about carbon sequestration. At the natural resources committee, we had many presentations on this. The industry is admitting that by 2015, using the Iogen project, it perhaps could sequester about 25 megatonnes of CO₂. That is about one-quarter of the production from the tar sands. This is the investment that is actually going to reduce CO₂ emissions from the tar sands over a period of time? I do not think so.

Does the minister have any other answers that could work with the tar sands, other than a more rational development of these great resources?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, CO₂ sequestration obviously is showing extraordinary promise. The technology is there. It is expensive. That is why we have asked this task force to come back and report to government on what is the role of industry, what needs to be done and how we make it happen. It can have a significant impact on the environment.

There are other technologies being developed to reduce CO₂ emissions. Members will see a lot of investment by our government in this fund. On technology alone, we are investing $1.5 billion in technology development over the next four years.

This is important. We all like our energy and there is one thing that we should never forget. We are quick to point this out, and members have done it all day today on the oil industry, but we must never forget that we use every single drop that is produced to drive our cars and to power our homes. We have to do better.

Yes, to answer the member's question, a lot of things are coming forward that actually will reduce not only CO₂ gases but also pollutants going into the atmosphere. Our government is very proud to partner and support those initiatives.