ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Á

1140

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

Mr. David McGuinty (President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy)

Á

1145

Á

1150

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1200

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1205

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mr. David McGuinty

Mr. Alex Wood (Policy Adviser, Ecological Fiscal Reform, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy)

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1220

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. David McGuinty

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1225

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1230

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1235

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1240

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Â

1245

Mr. David McGuinty

Â

1250

The Chair

Â

1255

Mr. David McGuinty

Mr. Alex Wood

The Chair

Mr. David McGuinty

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 026

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you to our committee. Today we will hear witnesses from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

[English]

    We're very grateful you were able to come. We apologize for the delay. We have lost a good half hour, but we'll try to make up for it. Without any further hesitation, we invite you to speak.

    Mr. McGuinty, would you like to introduce your delegation? Once you have made your presentation, there will be one, if not two, rounds of questions.

    Again, welcome to the committee.

    Mr. David McGuinty (President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I am accompanied today by Alex Wood, who is a senior policy advisor with the round table on energy questions; and Carolyn Cahill, who works with me very closely and has been holding the pen, so to speak, on the process and the product of our indicators work, which has been just wrapped up and forms part of the report--copies of which you would have all received in your office, and extra copies are provided here.

    Just before I go into this question of a broad assessment of the policy-making context for climate change in Canada, I want to take a minute to talk about the National Round Table, for the members of Parliament who don't know that much about us.

    This is the prime minister's advisory council. The National Round Table was created in 1994 as an advisory council to the PM.

[Translation]

    This is now an independent federal advisory body, whose 25 members appointed by the Prime Minister come from throughout the country and represent a wide range of sectors and fields.

[English]

    We have business leaders, ecologists, labour leaders, first nations representatives and leaders, and others who come together and work in a neutral setting to bring forward and to deal with principal questions around the notion of sustainable development in Canadian society. They build national teams, and they try to put forward balanced, reasoned, and practical recommendations for change.

    Everything we do is predicated on the notion that an investment in the environment is an investment in the economy. We work from the basis that environmental injury is deficit spending and that there are many instances of market failures throughout Canadian society that desperately need to be corrected and, if they were corrected, would lead to both enhanced environmental and economic efficiency.

    That notion guides much of our work, two areas of which I want to turn to today: our work on indicators and our examination of fiscal policy in the context of climate change. Both of these are also predicated on the knowledge that healthy ecosystems are major producers of wealth. Forget about running a prosperous economy in the long term if we damage the ecosystems that provide clean air, clean water, fibre, pollination, stable climate, and other crucial goods and services that we can no longer take for granted and continue to leave unvalued.

[Translation]

    In other words, we need a new economy where the rational and informed decision-making process will be based on the expansion of the framework we've relied on until today. From now on, we must take into account the long-term effects of our actions.

[English]

    We are very far from having this information at our fingertips. Canada, like most other countries, relies on various macroeconomic indicators such as the GDP, the gross domestic product, to support decision-making on economic development. But these economic indicators, while they get all the attention, don't provide any sense as to whether current economic activity is affecting the prospects of future generations. It's precisely because of this imbalance that the Government of Canada, though the then Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, asked the National Round Table nearly three years ago to work with Statistics Canada and Environment Canada to devise a small number of national indicators that would not replace, not supplant, but supplement the GDP and other economic indicators.

    One of our biggest challenges was making the indicators clear and easy to use, all the while making them relevant in an economic context. This is why we focused on the notion, the concept of capital, an economic term that refers to assets that are needed to sustain production in the future.

    In particular, we worked on devising indicators that can address the state of our natural capital. This is a term that is not in the Canadian lexicon, especially ecosystem services, for which as of yet we have seen no credible substitutes. The selected indicators measure, sometimes for the first time on a national basis, some of our most basic and crucial types of natural capital: air quality, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and the extent of two types of key ecosystems--forests and wetlands.

    There is one indicator of human capital: educational attainment. We include this on the final list because it reveals how our investment in a well-educated workforce will help us understand our ability to compete in the global knowledge-based economy.

    So these capital indicators, taken together with more traditional economic indicators, will finally begin to provide us with a powerful sense of the state of Canada's environment, economy, and society--in other words, the true health and wealth of this nation-state.

    In particular, these indicators are important climate change policy tools. Some, like the greenhouse gas emission indicator, are directly linked to the issue of how much every year; others, such as the wetlands indicator, will help determine the impacts stemming from climate change; and yet again, forest cover speaks to carbon sequestration. That was referred to, as I said a moment ago, by the Government of Canada in its 2000 budget.

    The first thing we did was what we always do--convene a multi-stakeholder steering committee to drive the work. Indicator experts, government officials, private sector representatives, bankers, environmentalists, labour leaders--all across the country they came and provided invaluable direct experience in the indicators area, and they gave us a reality check as to whether the emerging indicators would make any kind of sense with everyday hard-working, good old-fashioned Canadians.

    To broaden the consultation process, we held several conferences and workshops. Our work was reviewed by some 1,600 Canadians from across the country, from every walk of life. We worked with 70 scientists and statisticians to help create technically credible indicators.

    During the course of all the deliberations, it became very clear that data on all types of capital should be connected to Canada's system of national accounts, the information system that supports and underpins key macroeconomic indicators. While the incorporation of data on natural, human, and social capital into the system of national accounts might sound like one of your more esoteric policy proposals, let me assure you that doing so will make Canada the world leader, the single world leader, in analyzing the connections between the environment, the economy, and our overall societal well-being. In fact, while the World Bank, the United Nations, and the OECD are only just starting to talk about the need to better track natural capital, we have created here some of the most advanced thinking in this area.

    Determining better climate change policy is a concrete example of the benefits of expanding this system of national accounts. Assessing policy options in this area requires information on the impacts of climate change, the economic activities that lead to climate change, and the costs of reducing emissions that lead to climate change. While we already have some data in each of these areas, meshing them into one coherent picture is very far from possible right now. We simply can't link the environment and the economy together from a statistical point of view, which is something we need to learn to do now, and to do it fast.

Á  (1145)  

    As a result of this report, Statistics Canada created a detailed long-term plan as to how they believe the accounts should be expanded. It was presented to the standing committee on March 20. However, they also openly acknowledge that while creating the accounts is one thing, populating each account with data is something completely different. This brings me to one of the strongest findings of this entire three-year process.

    When we were trying to determine which indicators would be recommended in this report, we were absolutely astonished at the lack of good quality and regularly updated national information on even basic environmental issues. This is a nation of water and trees, yet today we don't have the basic data we need on water and forests. However, the program participants did manage to create robust indicators in these areas—but these are the great exception. We're going to have to build and, in some cases, rebuild our information systems in the area of the environment. It's for this reason that the report strongly supports an initiative called the Canadian Information System for the Environment, CISE, created by Environment Canada to catalyze the creation of a system collecting the appropriate data and information, share the information, and make it accessible to all Canadians.

    Our work on indicators, the system of national accounts at Statistics Canada, and the Canadian Information System for the Environment, all present an integrated vision that will help safeguard future prosperity. It's also a vision that necessitates strong departmental cooperation, one that Environment Canada and Statistics Canada have begun to develop and are determined to continue. We are now assisting both departments in presenting our recommendations to cabinet. Environment Minister David Anderson, has committed to advising his cabinet colleagues how to respond to the proposals presented to you today.

    Let me leave you with a simple question before shifting gears to fiscal policy. We're asking a simple question here that we believe will resonate with Canadian citizens everywhere: Look, are we living today beyond our environmental means and compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy a high quality of life? Shouldn't environmental injury be viewed and monetized as deficit spending? Citizens now expect the complete avoidance of deficits everywhere, but when it comes to nature, are we running an ecological deficit? Can we afford one?

    Turning now to the question of climate change and tax policy, I want to draw your attention to what we see as three challenges facing Canada going forward, as it moves to implement—donc mettre en oeuvre— our climate change commitments. The first of these has to do with the absence of a clear long-term strategy examining our energy future in the context of what we know about our climate change commitments.

    The committee is no doubt aware that the U.K. government recently released a white paper entitled Our Energy Future—Creating a Low-Carbon Economy. This work brings together analysis of U.K. energy supply and demand out to 2050, with a set of commitments relating to carbon emissions. This exercise has been replicated in many, many other OECD countries.

    The major advantage of such a road map is that it provides a clear road map to the general public, policy-makers, and governments on how elements as diverse as transportation, agriculture, innovation, education, and the environment—just to name a few—actually come together around the issue of energy and climate change. It provides a framework for how public investments can and will be made. It lays out clear expectations that help shape long-term business planning and investments. And it serves as a rallying cry that Canadians can understand as we go forward and ask them to make changes in their lives.

    Such an exercise has not been undertaken in Canada to date. The National Energy Board has conducted a scenario-building exercise relating to energy supply and demand in Canada to 2025, but it's very descriptive and not prescriptive. Recently, Minister Anderson made comments about the need for Canada to carry out long-term planning in relation to energy and climate change, so we're optimistic that the need for such an exercise is starting to be felt at the highest levels in this government.

    The second challenge relates to the absence of a coordinated decision-making governance architecture. In ten years of practice—not theory, but practice—we have seen over and over again in our work that there continues to be a mismatch between the kinds of horizontal thinking and decision-making implicit in issues of sustainable development, and the basic structure for public policy-making in Canada. This is a very, very difficult question. We do not, and we don't see any group as having, any single silver bullet. We are, however, hoping to explore some of these questions in a program we're currently developing while we're looking at governance and sustainability.

Á  (1150)  

    The third challenge I would like to highlight relates to the use of economic and tax instruments in the achievement of objectives under climate change. The basic truth--and I know this is not going to come as any surprise to our chairman here today, who has himself spoken on this topic--is that our use of tax and other economic instruments to positively affect outcomes on climate change is terribly weak. From the perspective of the round table, this situation means Canadian governments--and I stress governments--have not capitalized on the potential major impact that a creative and concerted use of fiscal policy can make and have as we address the climate change issue.

    Let me highlight just two programs that have direct relevance to the question before the committee: one on ecological fiscal reform and urban sustainability, and the other on ecological fiscal reform and energy.

    The question of urban sustainability, of course, has a terrific bearing, a direct bearing, on the issue of climate change because it intersects things like public transit, urban form, and energy use. We just recently released a report identifying a number of recommendations for how fiscal policy can be used to promote urban sustainability with resulting beneficial impacts for Canada's climate change challenge.

    Four broad categories are addressed: getting the federal house in order; supporting urban transit; promoting sustainable infrastructure; and encouraging the efficient use of energy and land--for example, amending the accelerated capital cost allowance provisions to include community energy systems. We'd be happy to provide additional details on this report during the Q and A session and comments.

    We're also pursuing a program on ecological fiscal reform and energy. We're looking at how fiscal policy can be used from a long-term perspective to promote the reduction of carbon emissions from Canadian energy systems, both in absolute terms and as a ratio of GDP.

    To do so, we'll be looking at three different sectors that we feel have the potential to contribute very favourably to this long-term decarbonization but in which a number of obstacles remain that might be addressed using fiscal and economic instruments. Those three sectors are hydrogen, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

    Our objective at the end of this series of case studies is to produce some robust evidence-based pragmatic and practical recommendations to make to the government at large, and the Department of Finance specifically. We're trying to promote the advancement of those sectors at the same time. We also hope to be able to extract some more general lessons from the case studies that will relate to the kind of framework of policies Canada is going to need to promote long-term carbon emission reductions.

    This part of our work lies some way into the future, so I'd now like to return to the more general issue of what fiscal policy looks like.

    What does exist is weak. There are a number of tax measures, a number of spending programs, a number of initiatives that have indirect bearing on the issue. What there is, however, is piecemeal. It does not target the individual Canadian consumer per se. It does not provide the broad wholesale base of fiscal support that is enjoyed by other parts of the energy sector. There is yet no evidence of the targeted measures announced in the government's climate change plan.

    I'll close here by looping back to our earlier observation on the need for an overarching vision. There is no explicit alignment of fiscal policy with the broader challenge posed by climate change. Given how critical our energy sector is to the health of our economy, given how substantial the climate change related challenges are, this is a situation that concerns us greatly.

    Thank you very much.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

    We'll start with Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mills will be followed by Mr. Bigras.

[English]

After that, we'll go to Mr. Reed and Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Listening to your presentation, it all sounds very good and very bureaucratic. I guess it gets down to the real practicality of how we get to the people to convince them that these sorts of policies are actually worth getting involved with, and you've sort of touched on that as to incentives you might use, economic incentives.

    But I look at the actual things happening to our environment, whether it's contaminated sites or whether it's my number one project, the Fraser Valley and Sumas and what's getting involved there, and I see so little government involvement.

    So to bring it to the real practicality, how are you going to do that? How are you going to get Canadians on side to use less carbon, to be concerned about conservation, about the smog days--some practical ideas?

    Mr. David McGuinty: Thank you for the question.

    The round table's mandate is to go forward and promote the principles and practices of sustainable development throughout Canadian society. It's a huge mandate on a very limited budget. Our work is focusing mostly on some of the systemic design, architecture issues that we're going to have to realign in the way we do government, if we want to get, for example, the right price signals out into the marketplace.

    We see the notion, for example, of natural capital as one that Canadians can understand. When we focus-grouped Canadians before we did the syndicator's work--during the process, I should say--we discovered that Canadians understand natural capital the way they understand the concept of a bank account with principal and interest. They understand inherently, at a gut level, that you cannot continue to deplete your bank account and live off the interest. So the notion of natural capital...the words “natural capital”, as I said, are not in the Canadian lexicon. We have to get them into the Canadian lexicon.

    Kyoto has gone a great distance by doing one simple thing for us, by monetizing carbon. So when I explained the Kyoto Protocol to the owner of the Ottawa taxi fleet and explained to him that he's going to have to pay for the right to emit so the atmosphere continues to process his waste, which heretofore has been treated as free, he understands the issue.

    With respect to people engagement, one of the things I personally--not the members of the round table--have been trying to say around the greater Ottawa bubble is that we need a rallying cry. If it's going to be Kyoto, let's make it Kyoto. Let's say so and do so. Canadians are waiting to be mobilized. I don't think they've been mobilized on a sustainable development issue in the last 25 years in a meaningful way. The Ottawa Citizen is reporting today that people still don't understand what one-tonne reductions would look like. They think it's a weight loss plan.

    There's a huge effort that has to be made now to be able to create a single rallying cry, and I think the way to do that is to speak in terms that people inherently understand, that their environment is linked to their economy. They know it, they're concerned about it, and if we find those kinds of buttons to push, I think we'll get there.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: All right, now, back to the issues.

    For instance, Toronto has a garbage problem. It became public knowledge because of SARS and blocking the border to garbage going to Michigan. But the reality is that in the rest of the world, garbage is being dealt with differently than it is here in Canada.

    I've been visiting garbage sites since the 1970s and have been opposed to landfilling for that long. I don't see anybody stepping up in Toronto--maybe Mr. Tonks can do this--and saying, guys, why don't you go and look around the world at what they're doing? Go to Berlin and look at what they're doing with their garbage. Go to many of the European capitals and see what they're doing. They are incinerating, and my God, that's big black smoke and all those toxins going into the air--but that's not what's happening. Incineration today scrubs that stack to the point where they have less than 1% being emitted; 99% is staying internal in the system.

    So it's not the big black smoke anymore, but Canadians need to know that. They need to get that information. Elected people need to get that information, because they seem to throw their hands in the air and say, well, we have to dump it in the ground. No, we don't, and we don't have limitless space out there to dump garbage. That's just one example.

    I mentioned Sumas as another example of air. Certainly if Mr. Comartin were here he would talk about southern Ontario and some of the problems there. We're not dealing with those issues. Nobody seems to be dealing with them.

    When I approach somebody about garbage, I approach the federal government and they say, no, that's totally provincial. If you approach the provincial government, they say, no, that's totally municipal. You approach the municipal government, and they say they don't have any money to do any research; they'll just do it the way they did it before. As a result, nobody does anything, and the environment down the road has a time bomb seeping into our groundwater. It's going to be a major problem for future generations. How do we deal with that?

    Mr. David McGuinty: I think one of the first ways of dealing with that is to disaggregate this notion of sustainable development in terms Canadians actually understand. They understand the waste problem. They understand air quality problems. They want to turn on their taps and feel safe about giving their children the water that comes out of the tap. So I would say the first thing we should do is continue to disaggregate the notion of sustainable development in terms Canadians understand, like waste issues.

    You pointed to a huge fundamental barrier we've been butting up against now for 10 years, and that is that we've been going around and talking to folks about the notion that maybe it's time for a new union in this country. We have an economic union, which is constitutional in nature. We have a social union framework agreement. Maybe it's time for a new environmental deal. Maybe it's time for a new environmental union.

    During our indicators work, it will come as no surprise to you that one of the things Environment Canada is now being asked to do if it is going to receive funding for the Canadian Information System for the Environment is do a deal with the provinces so the cities and the provinces aren't collecting the same data as the federal government is collecting. Imagine, we have to bring to bear the notion that we're not even sharing the same information. There's so much overlap, and every single ministry in this country has been cut to the tune of at least 40% at the provincial level--60% in Newfoundland. The federal Department of the Environment has been cut. So now we're saying maybe it's time to reboot this relationship. It's such a fundamental priority for us--it has a long-term bearing on our economy. Maybe we should look at that kind of new deal, rebooting it and revamping it.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

    The Chair: On the second round, Mr. Reed, please.

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

    Well, you're speaking here to the ultra-converted. This has been a personal involvement of mine for 25 years. I can certainly agree with the conclusions the round table has come to.

    There are some things I would like to put on the record, if I might, though. First of all, I would just deliver a minor caution about the emphasis on hydrogen. Hydrogen is a secondary form of energy, not a primary form, and until you get the primary green, the secondary doesn't matter much. The cart seems to be put before the horse with this.

    We have some barriers we have not dealt with. One is the question of whole costing on energy. What is the real cost of the energy we consume? The pricing of all energy is phony, as you know. The price of electric power in Ontario has been phony for 25 years. What incentive is there for an investor to invest in a green energy alternative in Ontario with the kind of fiscal arrangement that's in place at the present time? There is none.

    There is currently uneven support for renewable energy. One form of energy gets a boost; another form of renewable energy gets nothing, etc. That is another detriment.

    One of the detriments I have found over the years as well is that many of the approval processes for developing new green energy in the province that I'm familiar with have been based on junk science and prejudice. Therefore, even those people who would like to move ahead face that.

    Then we get to federal-provincial relationships. Somehow or other we have to get to where you want to go. When I think about forming a common bond among provinces that have certain kinds of energy for sale and others that don't, and others that have other kinds and so on, I wonder how we can arrive at this common thread where we all work from the same denominator, if you like.

    I think about, for instance, the bigger carbon producer, Alberta, and the bigger hydro producer, Quebec, and how you bring them together with a common theme and provide leadership that will be supported by the provinces and says “Go, guy”. I wish I could figure that out.

    I'm pleased you were talking about economic instruments and the need to bring economic instruments into the picture. We have a caucus committee actually working on that at the present time. We'll be making recommendations on the kinds of instruments that can promote investment.

    I should also say that right at the present time in Canada it's a very difficult process to get normal investment, that is, ordinary investment--places that provide capital--to invest in green energy and so on. It's really difficult, because of the phony economic structure that exists at the present time. So we have that to get over before we can move on. If we could somehow answer some of these challenges, we could possibly find the basis for moving ahead.

  (1210)  

    Finally, I would suggest when you make a major move into a green future, it means removing people from their comfort zones, whether it's their economic comfort zone, their perceived income comfort zone, or what they've always done, etc. I wish some formula could be devised to fire the imagination of citizens. It happens in places in Europe at the present time, where citizens actually keep up with the Joneses by putting solar arrays on their roof. That's the kind of thing we're missing. There's the business of garbage and how to handle it. Well, the technology was presented to the City of Toronto 25 years ago.

    The Chair: Mr. Reed, would you expect our witnesses to reply to your questions?

    Mr. Julian Reed: I'm sorry, I don't want to use up all of the time, but I want to share those thoughts in sympathy with what you're doing.

    Mr. David McGuinty: I'm going to reply briefly and then ask Mr. Wood to respond on the energy question.

    What you're pointing to is precisely the whole purpose of this work. Let me illustrate. We just released the SAGE report. The federal government offers a one-third GST rebate when you buy a brand new home. Most homes are being built in suburban areas; most of them are being built in the GTA, the GVRD, Montreal, and a few other corridors, including the Edmonton-Calgary corridor; and most of them are being built on green fields or farmers' fields. At the same time, the Province of Ontario offers you a land transfer tax rebate on a new home, but if you buy a triplex in downtown Toronto and decide to convert it to an R2000 property, or in the centre of Montreal and keep three units of housing stock in operation, and you invest $100,000 or more in retrofitting it, you get no incentive of any kind.

    It's the stated policy of every major city in this country to increase densification and to stop putting highly subsidized pipes out into farmers' fields, which are not reflected in water prices. That is a perfect practical example of the need to get down to the details of how we have ordered our affairs on the fiscal side in this country. What price signals and market signals are we sending out?

    So you are cutting to the pith of the work on ecological-fiscal reform, which the Germans, for example, are now driving home very aggressively.

    But on the energy note, why doesn't Alex try to answer.

    Mr. Alex Wood (Policy Adviser, Ecological Fiscal Reform, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy): Mr. Reed, I'll deal with the hydrogen question at the end, but on this host of issues you've raised related to things as disparate as the jurisdictional and investment issues, these are all signals we're getting back in the course of the work we're doing. We're going out to talk to people who are involved in renewable energy investments, for example, and who are looking to do some more, but are finding—as you have pointed out—the policy context very unfavourable to the kinds of investments they're interested in making.

    For us, it all points back to the absence of a guiding plan and the predictability that would come out of that plan to give investors or business people interested in the renewable side and energy efficiency improvements and investments—and even in hydrogen—and the kinds of technology improvements that need to be made the confidence that there is a plan and there is some predictability in where this country is going on these issues. From what they are telling us right now, it's not there.

    On the hydrogen question, we come at the issue very much with the caution that you do. But it's a very illustrative case of a sector where we as a country have made a substantial public investment in terms of the R and D component of it. In certain parts of that sector, we're now looking at early stage commercialization of some of the products. We now have other jurisdictions around the world starting to throw some serious money at the issue, and a serious set of incentives at things like hydrogen. The kind of advantage we have as early movers in the sector is at risk. President Bush has decided that hydrogen is the freedom fuel for Americans; and the Europeans are throwing substantial amounts of money at it, as are the Japanese.

    The hydrogen question raises some very interesting issues in relation to the kinds of opportunities that climate change presents to us as a country—not just the bad-news scenario related to climate change, but the good-news scenario. Hydrogen is a sector in which we can potentially become world leaders and build a robust industrial sector, if we put in place the right framework of policies right now to encourage that sector to remain in Canada and make the required investments in Canada. From what we're being told, the people involved in that business are telling us that they don't get any sense this framework is emerging in Canada. It is emerging in other jurisdictions.

    So that's an example of the cost to our economy and our basic competitive positioning in the world that comes in the absence of that type of framework understanding, or that kind of planning exercise, which we don't have right now.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Szabo, followed by Mr. Tonks, the chair, and then Mr. Lunn on the second round.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome, gentlemen and lady.

    Last week the House of Commons had a brief debate on a fisheries report regarding the health and well-being of the Great Lakes. I thought one of the most important observations I made from that report was the unanimous frustration that the committee had identified with regard to the lack of an action plan. There was a lot of talk about the problem and not very much about the solution.

    I think I detected a little bit of that in Mr. Reed's initial question about this being all well and good, but at the same time, maybe we need to work on developing indicators and the challenges of having a long-term strategy for our energy future, and so on, that there are known facts. We don't need any more proof; what we need is a commitment to an action plan, because every day we wait is wasted.

    Also last week we met with the representatives of the International Joint Commission, particularly with regard to the 160 alien species and their impact. I was surprised to see that the economic and consequential impacts of SARS and of mad cow disease were in fact superseded by the economic and attendant impacts of the damage we've done to the Great Lakes, and yet those two issues are emergency debates in the House but the condition of the Great Lakes is not. This is very troubling to me, that the relative priorities aren't established. So we ask you the question, when does this stop? When do you hit the wall and say we must do something?

    To give you the lead-in, I asked the question of them, why is it that we have only voluntary guidelines for ballast treatment where the alien species would enter, as opposed to mandatory regulations?

    The insinuation or my point was, are we faced with a situation where the economic pressures by business or those who have alternative interests put them in a position where they cannot move from that direction; therefore, is that the same as we're facing with regard to the challenges you posed to us today?

    Mr. David McGuinty: That's a great question and a difficult one for me to answer. We haven't been involved in the Great Lakes situation.

    Obviously we track the extent of invasive species. We looked at the whole notion of co-management five years ago. I think the lack of co-management approaches on the east coast has contributed greatly--and I think folks down there would admit it--to the collapse of the northern cod. I like the notion, and we have not seen enough point-counterpoint juxtaposition of costs. How much does it really cost to support all those east coast communities in the wake of that collapse?

    Part of the problem--and I'm sure you know this--is the Stealth bomber-like approach to damage in our ecosystems. Where is the tipping point? Where is the theoretical threshold? When will the Great Lakes turn?

    The IGAC is trying to combat it with its drinkability, swimability, and edibility indicators, which citizens around those lakes can understand. But I actually think it has a lot to do with not internalizing external costs. You've probably heard this before.

    Imagine, for example, in practical terms, that in the next federal budget the Minister of Finance stands up and delivers the budget and also reports to Canadians on the state of our natural capital and says the water quality is down. The GDP may be up, unemployment may be down, but water quality is down. That would be an interesting first-foot-in-the-tent start to juxtaposing one form of capital--built bridges, infrastructure, financial capital--with another form of capital--natural capital, caring capacity. Maybe that would start putting in black and white contrast what I think most Canadians already inherently understand.

    That's the kind of systemic change we're calling for here, flowing from which we may see a whole new approach to the treatment of the Great Lakes as not just simply a place that can absorb waste or deal with so many invasive species or be overfished, over-boated, or over-motored.

    I wish I could answer you specifically on the Great Lakes issue, but that's some of the thinking we're pursuing.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: On my last point for your comment, I'm asking whether we need a paradigm shift or a little bit of a jolt to get out of this blanket assessment that we're still just talking about problems, not solutions.

    With regard to the discussion on Toronto garbage, for instance, we are aware of the total recycle capacity of some of the technology now. In the Toronto area, we have the Super Blue Box Recycling Corp., SUBBOR. We have a Guelph facility that has been audited by the U.S., but Toronto didn't take it because they had this deal with Michigan, a long-term deal. SUBBOR didn't get its chance, but if that technology were promoted.... The government has supported it financially in terms of the pilots.

    But why is it that viable projects such as SUBBOR or some of the alternative energy options that Mr. Reed's ad hoc committee has come out with can't get the champions they need at the precise time to get over the hurdle that seems to be stopping all these important environmental considerations?

    Mr. David McGuinty: I can't give you a definitive answer. I don't know who could. But let me try this.

    We spend a lot of time interfacing with the public, as you do as elected officials. We do it in a different capacity. It's clear that most people in Canada associate sustainable development issues or environmental issues with pain, grief, and cost. We're trying to flip that notion on its head. They should all be about new economic, environmental, and social opportunities.

    When we were, for example, trying to go around this Ottawa bubble, through the federal government and beyond, to try to sell the federal government on why it should be much more involved in the city question, it was very difficult until Mike Harcourt and I went down to the World Bank and did the numbers and found out that there's a trillion-dollar global urban infrastructure market and that Canada was getting less than 1% of that infrastructure market, and the preponderance of what it got in contracting was consulting, not hard sales of trains and water systems, and design and beyond. When we came back with those numbers, everybody paid attention, and within six weeks the Prime Minister announced the sustainable cities initiative, which he then doubled in funding at Johannesburg.

    So if we can begin to show the incredible economic opportunities in retrofitting, restoring, reclaiming, and preserving, it might switch it around. It might flip it on its head.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    My apology to Mr. Tonks. I'll give the floor to Mr. Lunn first, Mr. Tonks, and then the chair.

    Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Chair. I have to go speak in the House. So thanks for your patience, Alan.

    I have a few comments. I agree with your notion that investment in the environment can be an investment in the economy as well. I've seen that in certain industries, specifically in the forest industry where I used to work. Mills would upgrade and use resources more environmentally. They'd get rid of teepee burners. They'd use the waste fuel to create energy for kilns. Quite often when they upgraded to these newer technologies, their bottom line would improve. There's a substantial increase, but it would actually save them money. So I throw that out as a thought, but I'm going to come back to the theme.

    I was thinking exactly the same thing as Mr. Szabo is. The feedback I get, and I think it's reflective of what the public thinks, is that there's little talk about solutions. We focus all of our energy on problems, whereas we don't often come up with concrete solutions. And I put that out to you. I'd be interested in your response because you, as a round table on the environment, are out there listening. I put it to you that this is something you need to focus more on.

    I look at the feedback I'm getting in the Fraser Valley. I've been getting a lot on the Sumas II project, which you're very much aware of. The people in the Fraser Valley are very upset over that project. It's being built on their doorstep. It's the second largest polluted watershed or air shed in Canada. And here's a large project that's going to be built right on their doorstep, and they have very serious concerns about that. So is there something you're doing in that...? I think in some of these cases they don't have confidence that the government is doing enough on these issues.

    I'm getting the same thing on all of the gulf islands, because they're looking at bringing in a 16-inch natural gas pipeline right through the new Gulf Islands National Park, just off the south end of Saturna Island. It's caused a lot of concern with residents there, who in their own right are very credible, highly respected environmentalists.

    So I throw those out there. It's the same thing in Toronto. You talked about how you've been around since 1994. And Mr. Caccia would know more about this, I'm not in that area, but my readings tell me that the smog situation in Toronto is getting worse. The number of smog days is increasing, it's not decreasing. I stand to be corrected, but that's the information I received.

    So I throw that out to you. We need to focus on specific solutions and then put the resources into those solutions. I'd like to hear your comments.

  (1225)  

    Mr. David McGuinty: I'm not in a position--I don't think any of us is--to comment on the specifics of the regional issues you've raised.

    Let me pick up on smog for a second. It would be interesting if in fact we had a single national air quality indicator that Canadians understood--adjusted for population, as ours is in the recommendation we put forward--so we can start telling Canadians that air quality is in fact declining.

    Let me assure you that everything the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy does is solutions focused. We're not in the problem business, we're in the solutions business. There are many groups--and that's a very important role--who are in the problem business.

    Every single report we issue is filled with prescriptive, costed, analyzed recommendations for change. They may be recommendations for expenditures. They may be discrete tax measures that are being called for. They may be shifts. Pick up any one of the reports that have been distributed to you or are on that table, and you will see.... For example, if you take a look at our national brownfields redevelopment strategy, this is not a strategy of any kind; this is an operational plan to overcome three systemic barriers to move forward and clean up 30,000 contaminated sites in our cities and create a new industry for Canada, or build on the one we already have. If you take a look at our work on cities, you'll see 11 core recommendations--some expenditures, some tax--saying we have the system out of whack, not aligned. If you look at our work on indicators, we're calling for a complete revisiting of the system of national accounts. All of this is solutions focused.

    But I have to tell you, sometimes we really do feel like lone wolves, because so much of the work seems to be of the kind that raises the profile of the need to address something, as opposed to devising the tools, or devising the processes, or devising the specific measures that might actually shift the way in which our state is ordered.

    If there's one plea I could make to this committee, going forward to pre-budget and beyond, it is that there is a huge need. I've been asked by the chair of finance committees repeatedly, what do you really want for your ecological fiscal reform work? And my answer is always the same, 10 person-years, 10 person-years dedicated to delivering evidence-based options for change, because elected officials deserve more than they're getting. If we start increasing the investment in those teams that can look at what we can and cannot do in terms of shifting the order, I think we're going to start generating more options.

    With respect to process of questions around how to deal with a B.C. issue or a Toronto garbage issue.... I'm personally conflicted over the Toronto garbage question. I have a second cousin who wants to import it all to northern Ontario and put it all in a big hole, but he is the black sheep of the family.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I have to excuse myself. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunn.

    Mr. Tonks, please.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I don't know whether you saw this supplement in The Globe and Mail. It was on the hydrogen planet. It indicates all of the various areas, pursuant to the comment you made with respect to high-value-added R and D, where Canada could be perched to make a major investment and reap a major return in this particular field.

    There is one quote, though, Mr. Chairman, that indicates what is often, in terms of policy transformation, a barrier. It said, “Fuel cells are a disruptive technology”. According to Jane Dalziel, fuel cells are a disruptive technology.

    I'd like to pursue that from the position of policy development. In a mixed environmental economy in terms of technologies available to deal with what your indicators are telling you in the various areas of water quality, air quality,and so on, there is remediation required. In the selection of technologies, if you don't view them in a very wide spectrum, any one of them, singularly, can be disruptive. Any one of them chosen could be adversarial to another one you select.

    I want to pursue what you said in terms of this transformation that needs to take place in our political relationships first. I congratulate the round table on the development of the indicators and the sustainable cities initiative, but if you would, I want to pursue with the committee the environmental union concept.

    You mentioned the social union framework. One could argue that even to this day there have been dubious returns with respect to the social union. We're still struggling with even the crafting of words and principles, never mind action plans.

    I'd like to ask you where do we go from here? What would the round table see as its role with respect to an environmental union initiative and what could the committee do to facilitate that kind of initiative?

    Mr. David McGuinty: Thanks very much, Mr. Tonks.

    The short answer in terms of what exactly we're going to do in this area of governance is that it is not clear to us yet. We're still scoping this out with a number of members of the round table and meeting with existing officials, business leaders, former officials, elected officials, and so on, to get our arms around it.

    The general notion is this. We are being economically and environmentally inefficient in the way in which we relate at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for Canada has come to the round table plenary three times and said the round table must take the wrappers off this question of the architecture, the design of decision-making.

    If there's any one thing that the Kyoto Protocol and climate change I think has taught the centre of the official government--i.e., the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board, and the finance department--it is this: the existing allocation of responsibilities in line departments aren't appropriate to deal with this issue. I think that's one of the reasons why the government right now is in a hold pattern. Who will take the lead on this file? Will it be Environment Canada? Will it be NRCan? Will it be PCO? PCO tell you that they steer, they don't row. I think the notion of the quintessential horizontality of this issue has finally arrived in the centre of the federal government.

    So this question of architecture of design goes beyond that. What is the role of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment? How effective is that role? How effective are the sustainable development strategies actually being? This is something we don't propose to get into, but it's something we think is part of the governance question.

    This is where we're at in our own thinking. There are a number of members who have latched onto this notion of a union of some kind because they are from across the country. One thing's for certain. There's no consensus on how to move forward to change the governance structure, but, boy, will you find consensus on the need to tackle it.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one further question, and I may be taking some of the wind from the chairman's sails.

    But the chairman has made reference in the past, and I think in a rather compelling way, to the fact that some of the terminology we're using is rather soft terminology when we talk about indicators. Indicators seem to suggest that we don't know where we're going. If we don't know where we're going, let's get some indicators that will tell us. But as you just finished saying, there's a wide degree of consensus that something is wrong with the way we are organizing ourselves and galvanizing with our public into action plans.

    If we had the Canadian institute for statistical analysis that you've mentioned, and with the indicators that the round table has put together, if there is a requirement to act on climate change, on smog issues, on city issues with respect to better technologies for waste management and water quality, if there are clear measurements, then how do we separate who does what portion? To me that's what the public wants to know. The public wants to be assured that we can select the best science and the best technology that will add the highest value to economic life and quality of life in environmental terms.

    But how do we get to who does what as part of an action plan? It seems to me that once we have those measurements, bringing forward a timeframe within which action has to take place, we can bring some sort of a closure to issues and they just aren't interminable in the sense that, well, we keep arguing about better technology, so we have some more precision and accuracy.

    My question is how can we get, and how quickly can we get, to the who does what part of action plans?

    Mr. David McGuinty: That's what this governance program is trying to sort through. I can't prejudge the outcome, but it could be that it's a simple question of leadership. Maybe there needs to be a first ministers conference that actually put this on the agenda and not, as is so often the case, happening upon just health care, or just interprovincial trade issues. Maybe there's a need to revisit the role, and the empowerment, and the real purpose of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

    I wish I could be more definitive in terms of a solution; we don't have a solution, but we really would like to engage the right people in starting to think about it and ask the right questions.

    In terms of what this committee can do, the committee can do huge amounts by simply pointing out the need to start addressing this, raising the issue in the House, putting pressure on caucus and other colleagues, on cabinet ministers. We're convinced of one thing, going back to one thing you said earlier--and I'm sure Mr. Szabo would agree as a CA--which is that if you can't measure it you can't manage it, which is precisely why we're asking that natural capital begin to be measured.

    We found a small group of proxy indicators that we think makes some sense, that people understand. It's not complete--it's never complete--and maybe they'll be expanded. Maybe we'll come up with a perfect human well-being indicator one day. Maybe we'll come up with a perfect genuine progress indicator one day. But for the purposes of the task we were given by the government, it was about coming up with a small number that would supplement, not replace, the GDP.

    Mr. Martin said something very interesting, when he was Minister of Finance, in a speech we organized for him on Bay Street. About three or four years ago when this indicator initiative was launched, he said, you know, there really hasn't been a rallying cry around an environmental issue in Canada of the kind we had around the elimination of deficits. He went on to say that if anyone had told him, or anybody in the government for that matter, 10 years ago that deficit reduction elimination would become a household term, I think most of us would have assumed that was crazy, but it probably is.

    If we actually came up with this kind of rallying cry.... As I said earlier, if it's going to be Kyoto, let's say so and let's do so.

    Another plea is that it would be important for the committee to help the government think through what its two priorities should be, two or three go-forward priorities, because I don't think we can tackle all things well at once.

    I hope that's helpful.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Well, maybe there was a rallying cry from the business community. I didn't hear a rallying cry on the elimination of deficits from one person in my riding, quite frankly. But to wait for a rallying cry on Kyoto, when most people are engaged in their own activities and have to make ends meet, is really abandoning the role of government, which is to look after the public interest without waiting for rallying cries. Therefore, I don't think it would be wise to place hopes on a rallying cry in order to get things done and to put the federal house in order, for instance.

    I find your subtitle, “Getting the federal house in order”, on page xvis very good. It's also a very good report--the one on Canadian cities.

    You can see from the trend of the questions here this morning that most members are interested in the practicality of the role of the round table, and they are not very keen on the theoretical side. That's understandable because we do face mostly the practical side of issues and the search for solutions. You told us earlier that you are not in the business of investigating problems but of finding solutions, which is a very good answer.

    It's also encouraging to hear that, as of April of this year, you are placing the focus on reducing carbon emission intensity. It worries me a little bit, that word “intensity”, because it's reminiscent of Washington's language, and it's not really what we are.... I don't think we are in the business of reducing intensity; we are in the business of reducing emissions. But that may be just a little observation.

    The question is, at the end of the day, when we have all the indicators of the world, whether that will be sufficient to generate political will. I have grave doubts about that. I would rather see the round table putting under the microscope current policies that are being practised and examine them against a number of objectives, including the Kyoto objective. Yes, that would be useful, because then I would know that you are examining the Department of Finance thoroughly to see where the taxation policies run counter to national and international objectives. I suppose that is the purpose of your ecological fiscal reform on energy sheet or initiative.

    Many of us would be glad if you were to put under your microscope certain policies in the Department of Transport and determine whether, for instance, its fuel efficiency program, which has gone to sleep since the non-proclamation of the act in 1981, is to be tolerated in light of the Kyoto Protocol objectives.

    I would like you to put under the microscope, because it did emerge in the discussion earlier, the policies of CMHC and express your views on their continuous favouring of construction of developments in rural areas and in subdivisions, expanding urban sprawl rather than reversing that trend. That's part of putting the federal house in order, but you will be chasing indicators until the cows some home and not get anywhere. We will have indicators.

  (1245)  

    Do you think, as the round table suggests on page XX, the Department of Finance will take the lead role in committing to use the proposed indicators and in helping to shape priorities for the evolution of the system of national accounts? Not in your wildest dreams. The history of the department has always been one of being dragged reluctantly into the preceding century--not even in the current one.

    Of course, Statistics Canada will be very keen on doing what it is expected to do, and Environment Canada too, but the entire strategy on the development of indicators, it seems to me, is seriously in danger because of that premise. It will not come to reality. And if it does, I will change my name. So put the federal house in order, if you can. Give us a hand.

    The question was raised also, a moment ago, about who will take the lead in the horizontal thrust, which is a very important question. That search will be, I suspect, unless a miracle happens in PCO, also a very frustrating one because no department, no vertical department, will be given that responsibility for internal political reasons. Unless you have a very strong, determined, powerful agency at the centre, called PCO, Treasury Board will not do it either. Unless you have a very strong PCO, that horizontal thrust will be very hard to generate.

    That ends my contribution to this discussion, and I look forward to your comments. We are all very supportive of the round table, but there are times when we wonder whether it is barking up the right tree.

    Mr. David McGuinty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your comments and advice. I'll try to handle a few of these in sequence.

    Please let me begin by assuring you that when we talk about a rallying cry in Canadian society, I don't think any member of the National Round Table, or any of the staff there, expect the Canadian people to rise up and rally and have a cry for change somewhere. I think what we were instead pointing to is the need for a deliberate decision to be made to reach out and communicate with Canadians in an aggressive way, in a meaningful way, in understandable terms, so that they can recognize that their government is leading them in the right direction, to move on one or two fronts. So I'm sure the rallying cry question was improperly phrased by me.

    Two, with respect to the notion of being in the solutions business, and as you were raising this question of evaluating and examining the existing order in the federal government, that is precisely what we do in every single program that we undertake. We cannot make recommendations on how to move forward somewhere if we don't take a very long, serious look at how things are today.

    So if you look at our brownfield redevelopment strategy, it's built on the existing order today and changes that would unleash the full force and effect of a new market.

    If you look at our work on environmental equality in Canadian cities and the federal role, it's very much looking at the existing architecture of design and asking, where can we get to? What subsidies have to be removed? What barriers have to be busted, as Lovins would say? The indicators work is only one of many programs underway at the round table and one that was explicitly requested of the National Round Table by the Government of Canada and funded accordingly. So somewhere, someone, some group, some government in its wisdom, decided that this was going to be an important feature of the long-term systemic change we needed.

    Transport policy is something we looked at four or five years ago. We looked very aggressively at sustainable transportation, devised Canada's first sustainable transportation guidelines for then Minister of the Environment, Sheila Copps, which then became the foundation for the OECD's sustainable transportation principles and code.

    With respect to CMHC policies, we have made specific comments about how CMHC lends. We're recommending, for example, that CMHC pursue now the whole question of location-efficient mortgages based on the American experience through the Fanny Mae lending agency and company, where borrowers are rewarded if they are living in proximity to downtown, or in proximity to public transit, and get concessions, or breaks, on their mortgage rates. We're making concrete recommendations there. We're going further. We're making recommendations as how the CLC, the Canada Lands Corporation, disposes of Canadian properties.

    With respect to Finance Canada and the engagement of Finance Canada on the take-up of the indicators that we've put here, we completely understand that there is an entrenched neo-classical economic view of how the country is run. There is occasionally resistance. We've had an ADM from Finance Canada involved in this initiative since day one. We've had regular reporting in to the deputy minister. We've briefed the Minister of Finance himself on the indicators work. We're now waiting to see how things shake down in the transition here in the government in terms of its leadership and how this will go. I think it's fair to say that Mr. Martin is on the record as being extremely supportive of this. He's cited this work twice in two separate debates in the last three weeks, or month. He's quoted in the media as saying he has every intention of driving this through. So we are going to continue to work with Finance Canada, Treasury Board, PCO, the PMO, akin to part of our mandate, to see if we can in fact drive this through with Finance Canada.

    With respect to PCO's role and having the support of this strong central agency, I couldn't agree with you more. That's terrific advice. We conducted a leaders' forum on sustainable development about five years ago for Mel Cappe, when he was the Clerk of the Privy Council. For the first time ever, we brought 25 deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers into one room with 40 outside leaders from Canadian society, religious, business, environmental, labour leaders. We had a terrific exchange.

    At the end of the day, one CEO put up his hand and said, I'm very impressed with all the work on strategies and sustainable development and eight cross-cutting themes, but I only have one question: who's in charge here? It was a very telling comment. I think it struck many of the deputy ministers who were there. We have been raising the notion of an undersecretary of cabinet for sustainable development for five years, so the buck ends somewhere at PCO.

  (1250)  

    I said earlier I think the climate change issue has finally brought an understanding in the centre of how complex this is. I think we're getting there. I think the Kyoto Protocol's ratification was a huge breakthrough and I think it might just lead to some systemic change.

    Thank you for your comments.

    The Chair: Would you briefly comment on the consequences of not having a national energy plan?

  (1255)  

    Mr. David McGuinty: That's an issue I can't personally comment on with any credibility, Mr. Chair. It's not something that we have been working on. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Wood can give you some insight in terms of what we've found so far, building on the National Energy Board's work, for example.

    Mr. Alex Wood: As part of the scoping we've been doing, part of the due diligence that we've been doing, for the run-up to the launching of the EFR energy program, we've been looking at a lot of other OECD jurisdictions and how, from a 10,000-foot level, they are organizing themselves to address issues related to Kyoto and to climate change ultimately. And we've also been looking at a lot of what I would call scenario exercises, some conducted here in the country by organizations like the National Energy Board, some conducted by private organizations like the Shell Energy Services Company.

    The consistent theme, the consistent feature, of all of these exercises, is that they all presume, assume, make explicit, the need for a strong public framework, a strong public vision of how a given country, a given company, is going to address the related issues of energy and climate change.

    We made reference to the U.K. strategy. The U.K. strategy is explicitly tying what the U.K. government is committing to reduce in terms of its C0² emissions out to 2050 with the evolution they see in energy supply and demand they will be facing as North Sea oil goes off-stream, as they finalize this transition out of coal and into natural gas, and as they become a net energy importer.

    What they've done in a single document is align the requirements, that is, the difficult choices they will be made to make because of the climate change commitments, with some strategic decisions about how to invest in various energy technology pathways, what kind of relationships they should be building with other countries that may be net energy importers. All of these things are thrown into one document, one strategy, that allows them--in an imperfect way, admittedly--to understand and make public what their vision is of energy, with the issue of climate change as the central driving or organizing theme around it.

    When we talk about the need for this kind of vision in Canada, that is what we're talking about. We're not talking about a vision that is targeting energy per se; it's really the relationship between energy and climate change because they are so intimately linked, obviously.

    The Chair: All right. It's time to adjourn. My colleagues and I would like to thank you for having listened to us. We urge you to continue the good work. We hope to see you again soon. Thank you very much.

    Mr. David McGuinty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.