Environment committee  I can talk for several hours on this question without coming up for air. So I wonder if you had a particular thing you were interested in.

Environment committee  The countries we're looking at are those for whom carbon capture and storage are strategic, so we looked at Norway, the United States, Canada, and Australia. We also looked at the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands because they're doing a lot, even though they don't have quite as big export fossil fuel industries as Norway, Canada, Australia, and so on.

Environment committee  There are several parts to an energy policy. It is important that the energy be cheap and safe. In my opinion, the primary challenge is climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the major challenge over the next 20 years.

Environment committee  It is impossible to say whether it should be nuclear energy or biofuels. A number of different energy sources are needed and they will need to be developed in order to meet the needs of society, but at the same time, greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced. There is an important role for biofuels, as long as they are second generation, meaning that they are produced from cellulose, as opposed to food or some other material.

Environment committee  I teach energy policy. The title of the course is Sustainable Energy Policy. There is no easy answer to that question. It is possible that biofuels have a role in an energy strategy aimed at sustainable development. But, not necessarily. It's complicated. The same applies to carbon capture and storage.

Environment committee  Yes, it is a factor, but there are many others, such as China's very rapid development. People are eating more meat: as a result, more grain is needed to feed the animals. Also, rising oil prices have meant an increase in transportation costs. There are a number of factors at play.

Environment committee  No, I don't believe that is the explanation, because in actual fact, from an economic and social standpoint, the gap is now much greater between European countries than it is between the provinces of Canada. For example, Norway is now an exporter of oil. It has moved in that direction.

Environment committee  I haven't seen the schedule. Unfortunately, it wasn't attached to the version that I got e-mailed. So I don't know exactly what those headings are. When I said that a strategy should pick a certain number of goals, I was talking about the preparation of the strategy as opposed to a bill to consider a strategy.

Environment committee  I don't think this is an unreasonable list of things to consider in the strategy. I'm glad not to see things like rates of teenage pregnancy and a zillion other economic and social indicators. Sustainable development requires us to integrate economic, social, and environmental decision-making.

Environment committee  Yes, I actually agree with most of those points. I think the basic intent of the bill is very valuable, because Canada has talked about having a national strategy for a long time, but nothing has been forthcoming. I think you asked whether the problem is the mechanisms or something else, the political will or whatever.

Environment committee  Yes. It's evident.

Environment committee  I think there's a dialectic between reform and innovation and structure, and on the other hand between political realities and public aspirations and political aspirations. I don't think you want to set the two apart. In other words, if a bill such as this passed, it would indicate that politicians are saying this is something important, and maybe we should give it more importance that it had in the past.

Environment committee  Integration of environmental concerns with other social and economic issues must occur at several levels and through a lot of different mechanisms. There is no one mechanism that can solve all the problems. A sustainable development strategy is a mechanism. It's important. Strategic environmental assessment is another very important mechanism, but again, that can be done at different levels, and there are also instruments—such as taxes—that can foster linkages between economic decisions and environmental results.

Environment committee  No, I don't think so. The Norwegian or Swedish Prime Minister—I can't remember which—was asked about why they didn't have a sustainable development committee. “We do,” he said. “It's called the cabinet”. So in a sense I agree with you. I think responsibility for a national strategy, if it really means something, has to be assumed by the leader of the government.

Environment committee  A legal foundation would be a significant improvement. With respect to strategic assessment, it is very uneven; it depends on the country. Countries may use the same terminology, but what happens in actual fact is completely different from one place to the next. I have even seen research on this and it isn't well developed.