Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to echo your thanks.
We were hoping for some recommendations from you and you've done it up front, which is absolutely fabulous for our proceedings.
You triggered my interest in a number of issues as I looked at your materials earlier. I'll throw out two questions to all three of you and let all three of you respond to them.
A number of you mentioned the value of setting targets and prescribing targets. Thank you for the information about the E.U. My understanding is that in Canada they've simply set carbon reduction targets. I haven't seen evidence of kilowatt-per-hour savings of energy. Would it provide a greater incentive or direction to those who purchase and procure federal building space if there was a directive similar to the E.U.'s? This would apply when you're procuring space for the government and signing a lease. I'm particularly looking at leaseholds, because that's most of what happens at the federal level as opposed to building LEED buildings. Do you think that is a measure we need to trigger investment? Could you elaborate a little more on what you know about the Canadian or the U.S. experience?
We had some previous witnesses who spoke about performance contracts. Some of the witnesses said that was the way to go. Wayne Rogers from Luminescence Lighting in Edmonton said that isn't always necessary and it can make it more costly. In some cases, if you are simply recommending after the audit to retrofit something, a person could just agree to do that. I'm curious about your response. The second question is, are energy performance contracts always necessary? If so, when?