Natural Resources committee  Absolutely. The program is no longer taking new applications.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you for the question. As you pointed out, it is a question of applications. The Province of Ontario got out very early, in response to our program launch in 2007, to offer a matching dollar-per-dollar program and to subsidize the evaluation. There's also quite significant participation from utilities in some cities and municipalities in Ontario.

Natural Resources committee  Absolutely.

Natural Resources committee  Frankly, the review of the program on a regular basis, in terms of its expected uptake by homeowners, indicated to us at a certain point in time that there was enough demand from existing participants to use our remaining budget, and at that point in time we had to stop intake. As public servants, it's important for us to respect the budget allocations we have available to our programs, and we simply take the action in order to operate the program within its budget.

Natural Resources committee  Sorry, I hope I didn't say it was overbudget. I said we limited intake at the point in time when the existing participants would use the remaining funds. To continue the intake would have run the risk of exceeding our available budget. We have not exceeded our available budget, but we took action at a point in time to be able to respect our budget.

Natural Resources committee  Well, as the demand for the program continued and we monitored it on a week-by-week basis, we could forecast what the demand for the program would be, and the government was able to make decisions to provide additional funds for the program up to the point this year when we limited the intake.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  Well, I'm not sure that's the way I would characterize it. I would say that the government has responded to the demand for the program on three separate occasions by increasing the budget to meet the demand, and at a point in time we are limiting the intake in order to respect the existing budget that we have.

Natural Resources committee  For reducing energy use, air sealing and insulation provide a very high return on investment in improving the efficiency of the home, as does replacing a heating system. So of the five common measures that I've listed, three of them—or four of them, if you count the two insulation measures—are really effective.

Natural Resources committee  No, I don't have that impression. This program will reach about 5% of the low-rise building stock, which is a significant number of houses, but it also means there are other houses still with energy efficiency retrofits to be done.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to answer the question. As the Speech from the Throne and budget 2010 indicated, the government is doing a review of its energy efficiency and clean energy programs, and that review will look at the effectiveness and the efficiency questions that have come up this morning many times with respect to how those programs are spending public money and reaching the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other things.

Natural Resources committee  That's right. The demand has been steady since the inception of the program in 2007.

Natural Resources committee  There is an awful lot left for this year. It reflects the fact that over 600,000 Canadians have already had a pre-retrofit evaluation, and 300,000 Canadian households are currently eligible for a grant under the program.

Natural Resources committee  The $745 million represents the four-year budget total. We have already paid $340 million in grants and have over $300 million left to dispense this year. I can't give you the exact spending as of March 31, including staff costs and administration costs, as I don't have it with me here, but we can certainly provide that to the committee afterwards.

Natural Resources committee  There is certainly ongoing demand.