ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

¹

1540

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Neil MacLeod (Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources)

The Chair

Mr. Neil MacLeod

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly (Senior Chief, Housing Programs, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

¹

1555

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)

º

1600

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

º

1615

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

º

1620

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Hon. Serge Marcil

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Hon. Serge Marcil

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. Serge Marcil

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Hon. Serge Marcil

º

1625

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

º

1630

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC)

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mrs. Barbara Pauly

º

1635

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

º

1640

Mr. Neil MacLeod

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes

The Chair

Mr. Neil MacLeod

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Serge Marcil

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 004

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

    We are very fortunate today to have before us the officials from the Department of Natural Resources.

    Before proceeding, let me draw your attention to a letter dans les deux langues officielles from the Minister of the Environment to our clerk, dated February 18, in particular the main paragraph on page 2, which indicates the agency's willingness to prepare a draft report on the crown corporation's relationship with the new act. It is on the whole a good news type of letter, and I would like you to keep it in mind because it may be useful in the near future.

    It is on the instigation of Mr. Comartin that we are holding this meeting today on the progress being made by Natural Resources in relation to the Kyoto plan. Within that context we have with us today Ms. Barbara Pauly, chief of the housing programs, and Neil MacLeod, the director general for the office of energy efficiency.

    We welcome you. You have the floor. As soon as you have terminated your presentation, there will be definitely one round of questions, if not two.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod (Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Just before beginning, I might add a clarification. You spoke in general terms about climate change. Our understanding is that we are here specifically to talk about one initiative under climate change, which is the home retrofit program. It was announced last August and launched in October. It is in that context that we are making the presentation today. Obviously, if there are other items in which you have an interest, we can deal with them at another time.

    The Chair: Fine. Go ahead.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: You've been handed a package that includes a slide deck, which I will be going through; a number of items of promotional material that we use to market this program to the Canadian public; as well as some information from our website, which you may wish to browse through at your leisure. It includes some typical questions and answers, so we've given those as well for the public to have a look at.

    We call this the EnerGuide for houses program. Many of you are familiar with the EnerGuide label, which by law has been on appliances sold in Canada for about 20 years. It has very good resonance with the public. So when we decided to set up a program for houses themselves, we thought why not use this label that has a fairly widespread and accepted reputation.

    We started with what we call phase one. This began in 1998, and we've done almost 100,000 since then. We made a significant modification to it, as I'm sure most of you know, announced again by the former Prime Minister last August and launched by the former Minister of Natural Resources in October. We took that program as it existed and added an incentive portion, so people would be more likely to take action.

    The next slide tells you what EnerGuide for houses is. It's a professional home energy evaluation. It's going to help homeowners make informed decisions on energy improvements to save energy and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    In a nutshell, it consists of two things: a first home visit, where a professional assessor does a walk-through, collects the data, and does a number of tests. One that's shown on television is called the blower door test. Then a very sophisticated computer program takes all of this data, analyses it, and gives a personalized report on not only what is going on in the house, but it gives recommendations on what the homeowner can do to make improvements to their house after. In order to help the homeowner as much as possible, these recommendations are ranked top to bottom, in terms of the best things to do.

    We also give out information material and fact sheets to help the homeowner. We actually give them an EnerGuide label, the same as the one you see on a fridge, but it's for their house. The higher it is, the better it is.

    We then have another follow-up. Should they choose to do some work--and they can refer to the report we have given them--we will come back at no extra charge and do a second assessment using the same methodology. They can then see that the improvements they've carried out have made a certain level of improvement in their house. The initial rating on EnerGuide may have been 58, and after having some work done it could go up to 71. That B level is what gives them that second number.

    The next slide shows how EnerGuide for houses is delivered. We don't have a bunch of civil servants going across the country doing this assessment. We contract this out to the private sector. We have 21 contractors, and they deliver this through a network of over 300 trained and certified energy advisers.

    This infrastructure is in place in every province and territory. Service is now down to within two to four weeks. There were some delays in the late autumn just after the launch, simply because we were swamped with requests, naturally, but we're now down to about two to four weeks.

    The cost is market dependent. Typically it's around $300, but since 1998 the Government of Canada has subsidized half of that. So we pay $150 and the homeowner then only has to pay $150.

    We go through our government contracting agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, with the usual contracting approach, to make sure we get the best value for the taxpayer. We list the criteria on which the bids are evaluated. These are for the contracting agents to do the work--mandatory criteria and insurance. Then there are rated criteria, and Barbara can talk about those a little later if you like.

    The interesting part of this, as the next slide shows, is phase two, which began on October 15. This is where we add one important angle to the program I described, and that's a grant. We have $73 million over the next few years to do this. It gives grants to homeowners for home energy improvements, and we base this on energy performance. So if someone spends $10,000, that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get something. If they do something and we can measure the improvement in their energy performance, then they'll get a grant. It's based on the evaluation service I described a few minutes ago.

¹  (1545)  

    It's for low-rise, single, attached, and row houses, owner occupied. There has to be ratability, and it means single family houses are included and mobile homes if they're permanently fixed--these are just some of the technical details--and it's necessary to make sure there are no health or safety concerns that might preclude the evaluation.

    The next slide shows in a nutshell how the incentive actually works. Again, it's based on the measured improvement in energy performance. We give points. It does not depend on the dollars spent. We have a scale with a threshold hurdle. You have to do a minimum amount of work before you qualify. There's quite a wide range, from $112 to $3,348, but it would be a rare house indeed that would be at the high scale. Typically, they're at the lower end of the scale. We add a little extra for remote communities.

    In addition, between the time of that first audit I mentioned, they have 18 months in which to get the work done. They can't drag this out for three years or four years. As long as they do the work within 18 months and get the second evaluation back, they're eligible. You can't do it more than once. It's one time per homeowner per house. We send a cheque directly to the homeowner within 90 days of the visit. Again, with the second visit, that would mean the work would have been done. We can see the proof that the work has been done and we can measure the performance of the house. Then we send a cheque.

    Again, our target audience, on slide 7, is homeowner occupants. Typically older homes tend to benefit most, naturally, because they have the longest way to go in terms of improvements. The owners naturally have to be willing and able to invest in improving the energy efficiency of their homes, not only older but also larger homes and those that might use comparatively more energy. Those who tend to spend money on their houses already are likely to do some work on their houses in this regard as well. These homeowners typically are those who would have concerns about energy bills and are willing to take action.

    Slide 8 gives a few results so far. The overall results since 1998 are almost 100,000 evaluations. For those, about 70% took action. They have about two tonnes per house. That leads to about 14 kilotonnes. But the interesting part is that 39,000 of this is just since October last year when we announced the incentive. There's obviously a big uptake.

    What we're finding with those who are taking action is.... Naturally, it's very early going. The program was just announced in late October. People then had a bit of a wait to get their evaluation done. So although there have been quite a few who have started, very few would have finished the work and got their money back. For those who do, it shows really promising results we could have.

    We're looking at 4.3 tonnes--over 4 tonnes--in savings per house per year. So it seems to be having the kind of impact we wanted, namely, encouraging people to do even more than they would have otherwise. Again, we're just over 600 incentives so far. We have paid out one at $2,400.

    This has links to other initiatives, of course, for some of the other programs of the Government of Canada. We have Energy Star equipment promotion incentives. We make sure the homeowners are aware of that when we do this. Central Mortgage and Housing has a program. We're working with their aboriginal and northern community program. And of course we have our own federal house in order.

    The federal government, largely through National Defence, has houses that need to be made more energy efficient. We're working with our colleagues at National Defence to help make that happen. There are a number of utilities that also have incentives, and we've listed some of those there as well.

    I might note that there are some other provinces, which, while they don't necessarily care about the whole package, do have some targeted interests. Nova Scotia, for example, which wants to get high-efficiency natural gas furnaces out into the market, are helping by topping up homeowners if they include that as part of their package. So we're getting, I would say, targeted partners where they have special interests as well, and they can use our program. That naturally helps make more happen by the same one action.

    We have different provinces...some to help choose a renovator. We mentioned its availability in the Northwest Territories.

    That's it in a nutshell. We naturally have a website. We have a 1-800 number. You have a lot of the manual, physical promotional material in front of you.

    With that brief overview, I'll stop, Mr. Chair, and throw it open to you.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Fine.

    We'll start with a round of questions. But in honour of Mr. Comartin, who inspired us with this initiative, we'll let Mr. Comartin go first, and then Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to apologize for being late. There was a miscommunication about something. I'll leave that.

    I apologize to our two witnesses as well. Thank you for coming.

    I want to say to you, as I've said to the committee in advance of asking you to be here, I was getting reports back about concerns about the program. So let me address those in my questions.

    First of all, since I'm from Ontario, I may be a bit biased here. How many contractors are there in Ontario? Of the 20-odd--was it 20 or 30--the 21 you have across the country, how many are in Ontario?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Six.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are they concentrated in Toronto, or are they spread across the province?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Across the province.

    Barbara, you can answer that.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly (Senior Chief, Housing Programs, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources): The present contracts we have with the contractors obligate them to be able to serve, at a minimum, at least 80% of the population. We now have contractors covering pretty well all regions, including northern Ontario.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Of the actual trained advisers, how many are in Ontario?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: I don't have the exact number, but I'd say at least 100 of the evaluators are located in this province. Ontario has had most of the evaluations performed to date.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not quite clear on something. The overall budget for this is $74 million over the next...I think it was originally over three and a half years. It was roughly for three and a half years?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Yes.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: You've indicated that in terms of the actual incentives paid out, it's only $450,000. How much money has actually been spent of that $74 million?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: That amount of money.

    We have done no major advertising for this. Frankly, a program of this nature self-promotes because it's so useful. There was no incremental overhead associated with this, or very little.

    I mentioned the assessment program itself was in place before we added the incentive part to it. So there was some minor work we had to do from an information technology perspective to make sure we covered privacy concerns and that kind of thing. Therefore, that money has not yet been spent.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: So of the $74 million you've only spent $450,000 up to this point?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Plus perhaps a little more.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: Of that money there'd be a small amount of administrative dollars. For example, when new contractors are hired this year, we do provide some training to the contracting companies so that we make sure they're up to our standards. We have probably spent about $200,000 total on training to make sure they're up to speed.

    The other factor that comes in is the quality assurance regime we have. The regime we have says we will do complete quality assurance randomly on 5% of the files we buy. So there are some quality assurance costs.

    But the total spending on the grant portion is only $450,000. On the administrative side, we've probably only spent about $200,000 of this grant money. The rest was the other base costs we had.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: So virtually all of the $74 million is still there.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you tracking, or is there some way of knowing how many people are waiting at this period of time for the initial assessments?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: We could find out from our delivery agents. When we polled them last week we were told that most of them have a waiting list about two weeks long. A two-week waiting list would assume, let's say, four evaluations per day times thirty. It really depends where you live, but most people are not waiting more than two to four weeks now.

    The one exception was Alberta and that was because of the popularity of the program. Then ATCO Gas, the delivery agent in the province, recently announced another incentive they were adding for the purchase of high-efficiency furnaces. So you can understand that ATCO now has generated a lot of their own activity. I expect the waiting list there would be a bit longer.

    Elsewhere we've been able to eat at the waiting list because they've been able to train expert evaluators. We're down to about the same type of waiting you would have if you were going to book a home inspection.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you at this point contemplating spending any of the $74 million on advertising?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: We are not. Again, if we look at the overwhelming interest in this program, it promotes itself. So we have no intention of doing that at this point in time.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Originally?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: If it had turned out that this program were announced and getting the media coverage it did but it was getting no uptake, we would have considered that, yes. But we were pretty sure this was going to self-promote, and it turned out the way we anticipated.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Second round, Mr. Mills, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): I apologize for being late as well, but you know how this place works.

    I just need to make a comment about Alberta. I can phone my office right now and check, but the message I've been getting is that it takes months and months to even get an inspection. As far as getting anything done, it's again many more months after that. So there's a great deal of frustration with the program. I'm speaking now on behalf of central Alberta.

    The other problem is that when you have that evaluation and pay your $150, you don't really know what money you're going to get back. There's a real problem with knowing what kind of investment you're talking about, so there's uncertainty.

    Again, that's feedback from users, and we have hundreds of people who want to take advantage of the program.

    That was a comment, but the question is, how do you get good value for your money? I think back to the insulation program, where what basically happened was that the price of insulation doubled and we had a whole bunch of fly-by-night contractors arrive and people got substandard work--all those problems. How do we prevent that from happening?

    Secondly, I wonder about retroactivity. I'll use myself as an example. Eleven years ago I built a house. I put in triple-pane glass and put argon in between so that it was much more energy efficient. I now want to put in solar collectors and I want to build a windmill. Obviously, I'm looking at alternate energy as a good thing. There's no room for anything like that in this program, or is there? I would ask you that.

    Of course, we have a lot of geothermal heating now being done. We have new homes being built with geothermal and we have major building constructions now using geothermal. I just wonder if your program gets into that whole alternate energy thing. Of course, $3,000 would be a small part of the cost, but it would still be important to some of these people.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Let me talk about the first part, and I'll ask Ms. Mullally Pauly to make some comments on your last point, if I could.

    First of all, even though you put it as a comment and not a question, I take very seriously what you said about the situation in Alberta. Although we regularly survey our contracting parties in different provinces, it may be that what we are being told is not what you're being told. I intend fully that tomorrow morning we will look into this in much more depth.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Call my office.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: We will. We will nail this one down, for sure. Even though you put it as a comment and not a question, I want you to know how the Government of Canada intends to deal with it.

    The next part of your question had to do with how we prevent fly-by-night operators. You referred to the insulation program we had about 25 years ago. Also you asked about retroactivity. I'll comment on the first part, and Barbara, before doing the second, may want to add something to that as well.

    I think that insulation program was before my time, but as a Canadian homeowner, I was a user of it. I think I got $300 for putting some insulation in my attic. But one of the problems with that program was that it tackled something specific, namely insulation. Moreover, its basis was that if you spent money on it, you got this amount of money back.

    We deliberately made sure we didn't do that this time around. To give you an example, if someone pays way too much for some insulation, gets it thrown in their attic, and it really isn't doing much good, our professional evaluators will look at that and at how much improvement is being made. If it is indeed very minor, they'll get virtually nothing back, because we base it on improvement in energy performance, not on how much money is spent or on what you did.

    In addition, some people in fact may not need more insulation. But if they could get their windows redone or get some caulking redone, they might actually do a lot better.

    We don't want it to be specific to any one kind of material.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I'm a little bit worried about the senior, though. Again, if that contractor is not that legitimate and says I'm going to put in insulation, and maybe even does, then they won't get any money back.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Most of our delivery agents--once again the delivery agents themselves wouldn't do the work, because we make sure they're an independent third party--in most cases can provide lists of qualified companies that will do the work. They actually offer to provide that to the homeowners just to avoid that kind of thing happening. That's the last thing any of us wants to have happen.

    In terms of the retroactivity, I'll ask Barbara.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: We've had a lot of questions about retroactivity. Unfortunately, the basic answer is that all programs have to have a start date and an end date.

    That naturally cuts off the improvements I've made and the improvements you've made, Mr. Mills. But in terms of retroactivity, you have saved a fair bit on your energy bills by putting in energy efficient windows. If you had put in standard windows, I'm sure you would be paying a lot more, especially when prices went up a couple of winters ago. And this is one thing that we try to make homeowners understand.

    The grant is actually always going to represent a small portion of the investment. We know from the calculations that we've done—we're not looking at invoices, but at the research—that you're really looking at the equivalent of getting your taxes back on the job. It's really there to encourage you to take action, because we also remind people that now that they stand to save, depending on what they've done, 20% to 38%, or possibly 40% in the case of someone with an older and bigger house.... We've seen 40%-plus savings per year. It's not just the grant, but it's going to be the cumulative savings every year in energy bills.

    It's always sad to have to say to someone, “I'm really sorry that you did it on August 5 and not August 13.” It's always very difficult for us, but we had to draw the line somewhere. However, this year—because of the concern about people who would have to change their heating systems, and because of the way the heating system was coming on by the time it was launched in October, and because we realize that people often don't have a choice about replacing their heating system—we agreed to allow some retroactivity to August 12 for furnace installation. We said, “If you've had the installation done and you didn't have an evaluation ahead of time, we will recognize that there were delays and problems.” So we actually grandfathered furnace installations, because it's the one type of upgrade where we can actually remodel or recalculate the house as it was before, and we were thus able to let those people be eligible for the grants.

    So we tried to look as sensitively as possible within the parameters and still set guidelines that were fair to all Canadians.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Monsieur Bigras, followed by Mr. Reed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The concern I have about this program, which was described as complex in a February 14 article in La Presse - it may not be obvious, but it seems to be a very complex program - is its accessibility. When homes need to be better insulated to improve efficiency, quite often, we're talking about homes that are often in a poor state of repair and where the homeowners are on low incomes.

    Therefore, given that the homeowner must pay an evaluation fee of $150, does Natural Resources Canada have a program in place to assist low-income families that in many cases, cannot afford to pay this $150 fee up front? The program must remain accessible. Of course, families with incomes of $300,000 or $400,000 can most likely afford the $150 fee, but this shouldn't become a kind of user fee to achieving energy efficiency. Do you have a program in place to assist low-income families?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: The program designed by Natural Resources Canada targets homeowners who can afford to invest in energy-saving initiatives at this stage. However, we can appreciate that some homeowners may not be able to afford the evaluation fee.

    First of all, we're working with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide assistance, through the programs available, with home renovations. We are reviewing these programs to include energy-saving initiatives. Our delivery agent in Quebec is the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique du Québec. We have a good working relationship with this agency that has designed, in cooperation with Hydro-Québec, a special program for people on low incomes. Therefore, with the help of our partners, homeowners can have their homes evaluated and apply to Natural Resources Canada for the eligible grants. This partnership arrangement works well.

    However, we mustn't forget that the person earning $300,000 a year often has the largest dwelling, consumes the most energy and contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, these are precisely the persons we're trying to encourage to take a serious look at energy savings, because they are far more responsible for climate change.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: You're telling me that the Government of Quebec provides assistance to low-income families.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: The Agence de l'efficacité énérgétique du Québec is our program delivery agent.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: I read somewhere that the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency released a fourth annual report in 2002-2003 on the efforts made by governments in Canada to improve energy management. In terms of performance, Quebec tied with the Yukon.

    Could you explain that result to me, that is how Quebec and the Yukon came to be tied? What models did these governments develop that resulted in a top placement? What initiatives did they take?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: I'd have to say that these results were largely due to the agency's extensive collaborative efforts. When the Office looked at the province, we weighed the impact of the measures taken by Gaz Métropolitain which made grant funds available to homeowners who use gas, as an incentive to retrofit their homes. The agency has a contract with us and continues to act as our program delivery agent. They also offer a range of programs.

    As far as the Yukon is concerned, the Yukon Housing Corporation is our delivery agent for the EnerGuide program. The corporation also oversees the R2000 Housing Program for us. It has the staff and the capability to deliver these services.

    For example, in the case of new construction, R2000 is the standard for 30 per cent of all new houses built in the Yukon. To put that figure into perspective, 11 of 33 new homes built two years ago were rated R2000. Through these programs, the Yukon Housing Corporation attends to the needs of the territory's small population.

    These are two reasons for these top results, albeit not the only ones. The Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency conducted a fairly broad review, not just of our programs and of those of other departments, but of all provincial agency programs as well.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

    Next is Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    In the 1970s I had the dubious distinction of sitting on a select committee in Ontario for four years. It was during the time when oil prices were spiking. I can remember one summer when oil on the spot market in Chicago went to $50 a barrel, with the prediction that it was going to go to $120. It never got there. Industry got really serious about energy conservation. As a matter of fact, during that time they developed new techniques for improving their energy efficiency and so on. I wonder if what they did is something that is being applied in your evaluations or whether it can be. They would take a particular application, such as insulating the ceilings, something that would have a payback in six months. Something else would have a payback in a year, and something else might have a payback in three years, and so on. Because it involved significant amounts of money, they would stage the process and do the short-term recovery now, and then when the budget would allow, do a longer-term recovery, etc.

    When this kind of evaluation is done for a home--and I think of my own home, where I could never afford to do it all at once, believe me--is there any way the evaluator can say if you do these steps, you'll get a recovery in six months, or if you go further and do this, you'll get a further recovery in 12 months, 18 months, or whatever it's going to be?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It's interesting that you mentioned industry in that period of time because our oldest program in the Office of Energy Efficiency actually deals with industry. It's the Canadian industry program for energy conservation. It has been going on now for 28 years. We work very closely with them, association by association, whether it's steel, rubber, or pulp and paper, on where they can make the most cost-effective energy efficiency improvements.

    With regard to the work the evaluator does for the homeowner, I noted that they are ranked, and that ranking takes that very factor into account. It won't be that there's a difference between number one on the list of 30 things to do and number 10. That first thing will be the thing that does give you the best return. It's the smartest thing to do. So the homeowner will see not only what to do, but also the smartest order in which to do them.

    Mr. Julian Reed: That's very important for people who might anticipate spending $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Barbara Pauly was around for designing the program in the first place. Precisely because of that, she put that aspect in place.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Hubbard, followed by Monsieur Marcil.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have only a brief comment that certainly the program has attracted a good deal of attention and imagination. I am from New Brunswick, and we have had a number of people call our office on that. I'm not sure how many so-called contractors we have in New Brunswick, but certainly it is a bit of a mystery to a lot of people on how they get involved. Most people are a little bit taken aback and maybe a bit discouraged with it.

    It does provide an opportunity to certainly save a lot of energy. I'm not sure really that the whole thing is broad enough to provide for the average homeowner or small-time contractor to get involved with it.

    You talk about $150 or $300 and somebody coming back. It's not very concrete in terms of success or how people will benefit. Most people today seem to think, for $1,000 or something, that getting involved with a lot of red tape from the government is maybe not the way to go.

    I like Mr. Mills' suggestion of considering alternate ways of providing that energy source. If you had people using solar who previously were using electricity...today in some provinces it is in short supply. For that windmill, I don't know how much wind some people can generate in different parts of the country.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: We have lots.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: It certainly might be another way of cutting back.

    I was shocked. For example, I was talking to my wife the other night and she told me what our electricity bill was last month. We have a water system in terms of exchange of heat, but even with that, I think last month our energy bill was something like $435.

    If we want to improve the overall Kyoto business in terms of how we approach energy demand and supply, maybe in the future, I know both of you are involved in programs.

    What I'm saying really, Mr. Chair, is that it's a good program, but I only hope that more people can use it and that we can maybe broaden the overall concept.

    I think Neil may want to comment.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I agree. I certainly hope more people use it as well.

    In terms of the facts and figures, I would remind you that in the five-and-a-half year period—this probably doesn't stand out as well as we could have made it—from April 1998 to October 2003, we had 58,000 requests for evaluations. In the four months since then we've had 38,000 more. I think the evidence is showing that the uptake is exponential on this.

    That said, it is quite true that I would never think this would be the be-all and the end-all in itself. Many of the things we're trying to promote and pursue, objectives we're trying to meet, are very interrelated. We see this as a kind of core, which will lead the way for a whole multiplicity of new things that consumers will try to do or will try to put into their homes.

    There are many exciting specific technologies that are becoming increasingly available. One I'll mention is called electronic metering. As someone said, probably the most user-unfriendly device anyone has ever invented is the existing electrical hydro meter; that huge thing, which no one knows how to even describe, that sits outside your house with wheels going all over the place. The only people who can read it are the hydro people, or maybe I shouldn't say that.

    What's interesting is some of the new technology where you can have the meter inside your house. It looks like a clock radio. You can monitor what you're doing, minute by minute, and you can make choices. In jurisdictions where we've had it, we've found that alone cuts energy by 15%, with no change in any other behaviour.

    There is a lot of new stuff coming. We certainly see that this will be a catalyst to get a much wider range of behaviours.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: I only want to add something. I think Mr. Mills will be interested.

    EnerGuide will reward people who install alternate energy systems, as long as we can measure the change using the technology.

    We have an experimental project right now with a homeowner, who wrote to us from Nova Scotia, who is doing very major changes to his house that will involve passive solar energy as well as active solar systems. As long as we can measure it, he will be eligible for a grant.

    If you do something that reduces your energy use, whether that be through the use of an alternative energy system or through energy efficiency, as long as it can be measured, it can be rewarded.

    I would like to say that I was there during CHIP. I was a writer and did a lot of the brochures. It was a real learning experience.

    I'd say that for what we are doing now, we hope we have learned the lessons and that we have done things a little more smartly for Canadians.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

    We'll hear Monsieur Marcil, followed by Madame Neville, and then we'll have the second round.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Typically, who requests an evaluation?

º  (1620)  

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: Typically, the request comes from an owner of a single-family dwelling with an average household income of $40,000 and up. We're not talking about the wealthiest individuals, but about middle-class persons. Applicants tend to be fairly well educated, with at least a high school education. Often, the applicant is a male, but often as well, the woman is the one encouraging the family to make some upgrades. If we look at the psychological profile, we see that applicants often claim to be interested in environmental issues and that they often have children. They are looking to the future and want to make an investment, not merely to save money, but also to do something positive for the environment. This is a recurring theme. We were somewhat surprised by that because we would have thought that people would be primarily concerned about saving money. However, we're hearing that people want to do something positive as well.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: I haven't seen the forms that people are required to fill out. Do you make enquiries or find out what kind of lifestyle they lead, or what kind of consumers they are? For example, you mentioned a family with an average income of $40,000. They must be well informed in order to avail themselves of this program. The average citizen doesn't necessarily pay much attention to every municipal, provincial or federal program that is announced. Do you go so far as to find out what kind of car they drive?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: That's not one of the questions we ask in the surveys. I can tell you that every year, we randomly survey people who have participated in the program, first to gauge their level of satisfaction, to find out what retrofits they made and how much money they spent. This gives us a fairly accurate profile. We haven't included any lifestyle questions in the survey. To date, we've confined our questions to their participation in the EnerGuide program.

    Along with CMHC, we also participate every two years in a survey to gauge consumers' intentions to buy or retrofit a home. Through this survey, we collect a great deal of data. We ask a number of very detailed questions about people's lifestyle with the express purpose of compiling information.

    Furthermore, another group at the Office of Energy Efficiency headed up by Ms. Paton is responsible for surveying Canadians in general to gauge their needs.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: Then you don't set a maximum income threshold where homeowners with a household income of $100,000 or over would not be entitled to apply for a program grant. The program is open to everyone. If I'm a millionaire, I can also benefit from the program. I could own two 4 x 4 vehicles, a motor boat, two or three snowmobiles and still qualify. I once felt that programs like this one should be expanded, but I think we need to set an income limit. In my view, a person with an annual income of $200,000 or $300,000 should have the means, if that person is concerned about the environment, to resolve his home's energy problems. You're saying that there is no income threshold, except for the fact that low-income families may not be able to afford the evaluation fee. Correct?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: That's correct. Right now, there is no income threshold. This is something we might consider in the future, when we ponder changes to the program.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: I think it's worth considering.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: You're right.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: The municipality of Valleyfield in my riding has a program that targets older neighbourhoods in particular. Other programs target homes with rough dirt floors in the basement. These are not the homes of wealthy individuals. But these persons are big energy consumers because the walls of their homes aren't insulated properly. These homeowners can't afford to retrofit their older dwellings because this can be a fairly costly undertaking.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: You'll have another opportunity during the second go-round.

    Go ahead, Ms. Neville.

[English]

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you for coming.

    I just have one brief question. I'm looking at your slide where you identify links to other initiatives. I don't know whether you spoke to this and I missed it or not, but how does this program relate to or link with other initiatives? I'm from Manitoba and I'm aware of the Manitoba Hydro loan program. What would be the relationship?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: It's a very close relationship. The contractor for the province of Manitoba is in fact Manitoba Hydro. Manitoba Hydro delivers the program for us in that province, so homeowners are directly linked in through the power smart loans program. When they get an EnerGuide for houses, they get the results, but Manitoba Hydro also gives them access to the program. There are very close linkages with Manitoba Hydro for all energy.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Would they be eligible for a Manitoba Hydro loan as well as the grant?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: Yes. They can certainly be eligible for the Manitoba Hydro loan to finance their renovations.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Okay. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Neville.

    On a second round, Monsieur Comartin, s'il vous plaît.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was just looking at your numbers, and you're indicating you've done 39,000 evaluations. Do I understand those are completed?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Those, of course, are called the A evaluation, the initial assessments since October. Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: But you've only had 661 taken up, to this point. Can you tell me how many of the 39,000 have had the second evaluation?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I don't have that number. My guess is it would be very small.

    Do you have it, Barbara?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: The number of people who have had their second evaluation would be the 661 plus whoever else might not have sent in their request yet. I'd say maybe 1,000 have had their second evaluation done in that period.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Are you able to tell us how many of the first evaluations do not proceed for an application for any of the incentive?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It would be hard to say, because they have 18 months after the first evaluation. Say they got their first evaluation in November of 2003; they would really have until May or June of 2005 to do the work. Almost no one starts the next morning. In fact, we encourage homeowners, after they've had that first evaluation, to have a look at that list—even though it is ranked, as we mentioned—talk it over, and see, given what they could do, what makes sense; don't jump in right away.

    So it's not surprising. Those 39,000 are since October; they weren't all done in October. Some of them were done last week, frankly; this data is updated daily. I would think a very small minority would have had a second evaluation done so far, and probably in most cases the work is either underway or they're still making the decisions on what to do.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm a bit concerned about—I don't know what else to call it—the potential for conflict of interest here. The first evaluation is done; the work is done; and then the second evaluation is done, I'm assuming, by the same contractor.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It's by the same contractor as the first evaluation, but not by whoever did the work.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: So the person doing the actual improvement is not the same.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Absolutely not.

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: We have a code of ethics in place, and the contract the contractors sign with us states very clearly that they are not allowed to perform the work themselves. We also don't want them to give estimates. They have to give homeowners a list. If they do give recommendations, they have to give a list or a referral to an association. We have actually in the contract a wall that says you are not allowed to also do the work, because that would be a conflict of interest.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Have you placed a limit on how much can be charged for the evaluation?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: We have not set a limit on it, because that's partly decided by the local markets. We pay $150 per file south of the 60th parallel and $225 north of the 60th parallel. The delivery agent then charges the difference to the homeowner. In some cases, some of this difference might be offset by their local municipality. For example, Toronto Hydro has had a program going for a couple of years; Enbridge still has some subsidies for their homeowners. It's really up to the business entity delivering the program to decide how they can deliver it most cost effectively. We encourage them to keep it within a reasonable amount of money.

    That's the other reason why, with the contracts, we are now trying to make sure there will always be a choice in the marketplace, so that if people are not happy with one delivery agent they could call another one to see what they are being charged. We sense that there is going to be more competition, so that the prices will be fairer for the consumer.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you know the maximum amount that's being charged anywhere in the country?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: The maximum I'm aware of is about $200.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I have a comment and then Mr. Barnes has a question for you.

    I just called my office and they said the evaluation time is a minimum of six months and that much of that work is not able to be done within the year. There are all kinds of newspaper articles they can provide you with and of course a whole list of complainants who are furious about the program.

    So I would like to pass that on to you.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: I am sure they are. To corroborate my earlier comment, I will be on them tomorrow morning.

    The Chair: Mr. Barnes.

    Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to mention to you that I'm from Newfoundland, of course, and our office, I think, has been in many conversations with your office with regard to this program. There may be a large number of people taking advantage of it, from what you've said. I believe you mentioned 36,000--

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It's 39,000.

    Mr. Rex Barnes: Okay, 39,000. But it would be more interesting to find out from what part of the region people are really taking advantage of it.

    I think what you'll find is that there may be low percentages in provinces that are burning more energy, using more energy to heat their homes. You take the cold climates. Provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic provinces are colder than Ottawa. In Ottawa the sun will be shining and there will still be snow in Newfoundland. People are burning more in the provinces that are colder.

    The $150 is not a lot of money, but I think the program would be more successful if the $150 wasn't there. If you look at the criteria, Mr. Chair, if I was going to take advantage of this program, I would have to put my name on a list, contact someone's office, the contact person in the province. They'll come in and I'll have to give them $150 in some form or another to do the energy efficiency evaluation. Then, when it's all over, it depends on my income if I'm eligible for CMHC and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation with regard to grants up to $5,000. So I could say, “Listen, I'm making $35,000. I'm going down for a loan now. I've bought an older house. I'm going to go and borrow $30,000. I'm going to do windows, siding, put a new furnace in, put the whole works in. I'm going to spend about $35,000.” Of course, as Mr. Hubbard, the honourable member, said, people are not going to fool around with the paperwork involved for such low returns.

    Then of course comes a problem that you may want to address. How are you going to go back and check for years down the road if these people who have taken advantage of the program... and if the energy efficiency is still being maintained to help our... well, the global warming? It's no good to basically do it and all of a sudden it doesn't last.

    I throw that out there to see how you feel about these issues.

    The Chair: Just to cheer you up. Would you like to comment on that?

    Mrs. Barbara Pauly: One of the things we're trying to make sure of, Mr. Barnes, is that the type of work done to the house is permanent to the house. So we won't reward people for putting in something they can take away when they move or sell the house. It has to be something permanently attached to the house, so it's the house envelope or the heating system.

    We know from research that we've done and that was done in the United States that, in general, these type of actions have a fairly long durability over the lifetime of the house. So that side I'm less worried about.

    In terms of making people pay, before we designed the program, one of the things we looked at were other programs that had been available, because there used to be a number of free evaluations you could get. You could tick out the boxes and mail it in. We found that a lot of people would participate, but most people wouldn't bother doing anything.

    We did some research with BC Hydro Power Smart in 1996 and 1997, where we actually went to people and we tried to see what would make them do the work. We found that if you pay for the report, you have a much bigger tendency to take it seriously. You've now invested, and even though an accountant will tell you that's spent money.... As a homeowner, I know if I've paid $150 for something, it would be hard to say to my husband, “Oh, I've lost the report; we're not going to do anything”. It does seem to have a direct effect. We've looked at that and there is a direct linkage between a homeowner investing in it and actually carrying out the work.

    In terms of our objective of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, we realize this is what we have to do: go after people who are using more energy, go after the ones who can afford to do something right now, make them invest, and put something in place that actually spurs them on to action. So we're trying to do that.

    In terms of keeping them honest, certainly with any program we will be designing a longer-term monitoring program to give you some comfort on that.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Rex Barnes: New homes are probably being built differently, especially today, but there are some new homes that are basically wasting more energy than some of the older homes, because the older homes were made better.

    Wouldn't it sometimes be easier to increase the code for building new buildings?

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: It's music to our ears.

    As you may know, building codes are the jurisdiction of the provinces in this country. One of the things we're hoping, and I've had some discussions with provinces.... There are some provinces who, I'd say in the last six months, have really increased their interest considerably in this area. Something you may wish to discuss in future is the mechanism called the opportunities envelope, which was also announced at the same time as this program was. Basically, it's an opportunity for provinces who want to come forward and take action themselves to get funding from a federal government fund to help make that happen.

    One of the ideas or examples we used when we set this fund up was that we could in fact use this fund for provinces who were willing to change the building code, so that when we build these houses in the first place, they're the best they can possibly be. We could use this fund to help cover the cost they would have, such as having inspectors, for example—otherwise it's pointless, etc.

    As that gets rolled out later this calendar year, we're waiting to work with the provinces, hopefully to get some action on that front.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barnes.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Obviously, you are working with utilities across the country. From that perspective, you will know that some utilities are more progressive than others when it comes to accomplishing things. Hydro-Québec, for instance, has lifeline pricing; the first 30 kilowatts you use in a day are the cheapest. It's something I've been trying to promote in Ontario for 25 years. The interest-free loans in Manitoba are another step in the right direction.

    But in Ontario, the tools for conservation with the utilities are not very available. For instance, you were talking about the electronic device from which one can read consumption, and so on. But there is no incentive to turn your dryer on at two o'clock in the morning, because the power that's being purchased at varying prices by the utility is passed on at one fixed price to the consumer.

    I wish you could invent some way that I could twist the arms of the local utilities in the riding I serve to adopt some of these things that will encourage conservation. There are times of the week and times of the year when prices will spike incredibly, and the homeowner should know that and be able to recognize that on the kitchen wall, or somewhere, and decide, “I'm not to run my dryer today, or this afternoon,” or whenever it happens to be.

    As for the other part of self-generation that Mr. Mills was talking about, even though there's legislation on the books in Ontario, there's really no incentive for self-generation back into the grid, because there's nothing that says the price you will receive for that returned energy is equal to the price you are paying for it when it is coming down the wire.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: Clearly, I'm not in a position to comment on the policies of the Province of Ontario, but I might mention one or two things that I think do show promise.

    One of the places where smart metering has been piloted is Woodstock, Ontario. They have very good pilot information that really shows without a shadow of doubt that this kind of thing does work. That's number one.

    Number two, I was actually in Toronto last week and spoke on Tuesday evening with Minister Duncan, the Ontario Minister of Energy. He told me they had created a special unit within his office—not in the department—called the Conservation Action Team, I believe. It was just formed with a very reputable, well-known, and energetic person heading it up.

    You might want to contact Minister Duncan's office for further details on what he intends to do on that front.

    Mr. Julian Reed: To me that's new information, and I thank you very much for it, because I do believe there's a tremendous opportunity in the province of Ontario that has been ignored for 25 to 30 years.

    Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    This concludes our second round of questions. I would just like to add that this has been a very fruitful exchange, for which we're very grateful to you. I also hope the questions have stimulated your thinking, as it has ours. There is here enough material for a very good householder, if one really wanted to move it along.

    The distinction between phase one and phase two was quite interesting and quite informative. The only weak aspect, as you have seen already from some of the questions asked, is that the social condition of the applicant is not taken into account by the program. Perhaps you can take that under advisement for future programs.

    With that, we thank Ms. Mullally Pauly and Mr. MacLeod for their appearance.

    We have now some business for this committee.

    Do you want to ask them a question, Mr. Barnes?

    Mr. Rex Barnes: No, no, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to throw something out here in terms of the percentages from province to province.

    It would be interesting to know if the department could give us a breakdown of the percentages of people taking advantage of it. For instance, it would be interesting to see how many people in Ontario are taking advantage versus those in Newfoundland and Labrador. Based on population, for instance, what are those percentages?

    That way, I think both the committee and you at the department could determine whether or not the program has been successful and has reached as many people as possible.

    The Chair: Then perhaps we can mention, on the record, on the basis of the questions that were asked, that if you feel you can help us with additional charts or plates or whatever, then by all means, please send us some.

    Mr. Neil MacLeod: We definitely have that information. I guess it might be wise to place the request formally, and then through Minister Efford's office it will come back to the committee.

    The Chair: That would be nice. Fine, we'll do that.

    We now move to the motion by Mr. Mills that has been waiting for our attention. It is in three parts. But before asking Mr. Mills to move it, I would like to make the following comments.

    On the first part, it would be helpful if the motion were to specify which department rather than “a” department. Otherwise, it could mean that we would be calling some 25 or more departments, and certainly that was not the intent of Mr. Mills.

    On the second part, yes, it is good to make that into a practice. We've done it in the past, but it doesn't harm at all to have it as a practice.

    On the last one, it would be, I imagine, for anyone who is called before this committee, whether ambassador or official...to know the subject matter on which the call is made so that this poor soul gets prepared and equipped to do that.

    Perhaps you wouldn't mind going through the motions one by one, moving them one at a time, so that we can have a quick exchange and then vote. We could perhaps move swiftly that way.

    Mr. Mills.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Sure.

    Obviously, the first one is to the environment minister. We've had the main estimates now tabled in the House, so it would be good to.... Of course, the library has put together some training for our staff about estimates and how we can talk to the minister, ask him questions, and maybe do a better job of it than we have. But I think we should always have the minister here to look at the estimates, and that's the purpose of the motion.

    So I know it's pretty standard, but if it's on the books, then I hope we would do it as soon as possible.

    The Chair: And would you accept the friendly amendment that it would read, instead, “Senior Officials of the Environment Department”?

    Mr. Bob Mills: Correct.

    The Chair: So it would read with a slight change to the fourth line of the motion.

    Are there any questions or comments?

    Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is the Environment Department the only department that reports to our committee?

    The Chair: Directly, yes. However, others report indirectly, as you have seen.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: Then, in the case of Natural Resources, we can't... It's more general if we leave it as is. If other departments are involved, we could invite other ministers.

[English]

    Mr. Bob Mills: I guess it's my feeling that it's the environment department estimates we're focusing on. Obviously, when we look at such things as Kyoto or whatever, we can have five or six ministers come, and there would be an opening for that, but I wouldn't see us being able to examine the estimates of Natural Resources, let's say. It's hard enough doing it for one department without trying to get ten ministers or something.

    So I appreciate what you're saying. Obviously, if we had unlimited time and staff, we could do it, but it's tough to do just one department, and I think our responsibility is to environment directly.

    Hon. Serge Marcil: Okay.

    The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Are you ready for the question?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Merci.

    Second paragraph.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Again, this is pretty standard. The chairman has always made this possible, but this is just to officially say that when the Auditor General reports and the chapter relates to this environment committee, we should definitely be on her agenda first off to come and report. I think she knows that, but this formalizes that request.

    The Chair: Any questions or comments?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bob Mills: On the third one, basically I've talked to Mr. Parent, and I know he has done a lot of work looking at wind generation around the world. Some of the members who've been on the committee before will know how interested I am in alternate energy and where that should be going.

    I feel that his work would go somewhat unnoticed if we didn't have the opportunity to have him come and tell us about wind energy and exactly what his position is--and to justify his salary, I guess. He does that research on our behalf, and I'm not sure where it's reported to. I really think we should have an opportunity not to grill him, perhaps, but to hear what he has to say about wind energy.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Any comments? Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I agree, but there is a report that Mr. Mills might not be aware of. Mr. Parent has done an assembly of work. With the research he's carried on over the last couple of years, he's developed a real vision, not just for wind but for how all of the renewables sort of fit in together and so on.

    So I think it would be very worthwhile to have him here and update us. As you say, the effort he has put into this has been a very serious one.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Just to follow up on what Mr. Reed has said, it's my understanding as well that he's worked beyond just the wind area, so we should be asking him to address renewable energy generally.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I'm quite happy with that.

    The Chair: We'll make a note of that.

    Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Perhaps in advance of his coming we could get that report and have it circulated to the committee. I haven't seen it myself, although I know it exists.

    The Chair: Mr. Parent sends out a yearly report describing his activities. You're referring to an additional report, the one that Mr. Reed has mentioned.

    Mr. Julian Reed: It's just something I've received recently. I'll see if I can dig it up.

    The Chair: At any rate, our clerk will do some exploring in that direction so as to provide that information.

    Are you ready for the question?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Thank you.

    That concludes our meeting today. We will resume a week Monday, with a very heavy schedule.