Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to thank the committee for its invitation today. I expect a very interesting discussion.
For the rest of my presentation, I'll speak English, but I'd be happy to answer questions in French.
I welcome the opportunity to present Sustainable Prosperity's perspective on the 2012 federal budget.
I am the senior director of policy and markets for Sustainable Prosperity, which is an independent think tank and research network based at the University of Ottawa here in Ottawa.
The particular focus we have is the green economy and how innovation in policy and markets can help Canada achieve a stronger, greener, and more competitive economy.
We are not here with a specific ask. We are here, essentially, with a set of perspectives and recommendations for the 2012 budget based on our review and assessment of the 2011 budget. A longer description of that assessment is found in the brief we have tabled with the committee.
Our perspective and interest in this issue is based on the following assumptions. First of all, the federal budget is the most important expression of government policy on an annual basis. Second, the pursuit of a green economy is in Canada's national interest. Third, Canada's economic and environmental performance are closely linked. And fourth, smart policy can drive both economically and environmentally advantageous outcomes for Canada through things such as innovation and productivity.
Our assessment of the 2011 budget, using the promotion of a green economy for Canada as a benchmark, found the following:
First, the 2011 budget is a holding budget for the green economy. As Andrew mentioned, there is important support for existing initiatives in the budget, but no new major initiatives have been established.
Second, green economy measures in the 2011 budget are not part of an overall framework or strategy, as expressed by the government. Therefore, it is hard to establish an intent or an objective in terms of the government's overall approach to this issue. As a result, it will be difficult in the future to measure the impact of these measures that are contained and described in the 2011 budget.
Third, in the 2011 budget there is a heavy reliance on spending and regulatory measures, which by our analysis constitute 97.8% of the measures announced in that budget, without clear explanation or discussion as to why those particular instruments were chosen over, for example, tax instruments. In our view, this might involve opportunity costs in terms of the overall cost of regulation, for example, but also costs in terms of missed opportunities and induced innovation. Without a clear rationale for and explanation of these instruments and the choices that have been made, it is hard to assess the specifics of the choices that in fact are contained in that budget.
We don't want to suggest that the choices made, the measures announced, are in any way inadequate. The point we want to underline here is that without a real definition of why those choices were made and some transparency around them, it is hard to make an overall assessment.
Our recommendations for budget 2012, on the basis of that--