Just to clarify, and because I want my colleague to talk about the motion as it is currently worded, I would remind everyone that we amended it to specify that the study would focus solely on federal regulations.
It's interesting to see what Alberta has done, and I'm quite prepared to hear what it has to say. However, the committee adopted an amendment to the motion to specify that the study in question would, on the one hand, focus on federal regulations and, on the other, would not apply solely to Alberta's orphan wells, but to all such wells.
Earlier, my colleague called this a direct attack on Alberta. I don't think that's the intention. I just want to reframe her remarks. I think we need to stick to the motion at hand and what it says.
I myself would like to know what will happen to orphan wells and what's happening with the federal money, some of which come from Quebec, that's being used to solve this problem.
I think we need to refocus on the motion. People can disagree on the motion. If so, all they have to do is vote accordingly. Regardless, we need to refocus on the motion.