Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 15 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

Today, we will be hearing from two organizations. First, we have Mr. Sidney Ribaux, General Coordinator and Co-founder of Équiterre.

Also, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have Mr. Gordon Steeves, first vice-president, and Ms. Mary Jane Middelkoop, senior policy analyst.

We will start with Monsieur Ribaux.

You have 10 minutes for your presentation. Then, we will move on to the questions.

Monsieur Ribaux, the floor is yours.

[Sidney Ribaux, General Coordinator and Co-founder, Équiterre]

Thank you very much and good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before you.

Our organization, Équiterre, has existed for over 12 years and we promote solutions to individuals, businesses and governments. We work with over 100 organizations every year and we reach approximately 300,000 people in Quebec.

In its current form, Canada's Clean Air Act will not allow us to appropriately address problems related to pollution and greenhouse gases in Canada. Équiterre believes that serious changes need to be made to this legislation in order to ensure sustainable protection of our environment.

Canadians and Quebeckers have high expectations with regard to the environment and Kyoto in particular. Équiterre believes that Parliament and the government must take action in seven areas of intervention that we have identified.

First, reaffirm Canada's long-term commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Second, set specific and quantifiable targets for 2008-2012 in order to honour our commitment to reduce emissions by 6% below 1990 levels. Third, set intermediate and long-term reduction targets in order to ensure an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. Fourth, regulate heavy industry, which represents 50% of GHG emissions in Canada. Fifth, regulate energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for auto manufacturers that meet or exceed the best practices in North America. Sixth, adopt an ambitious energy efficiency strategy for the country. Seven, adopt a sustainable transportation strategy for the country.

For more detailed information on the first five items that I mentioned, we invite you to refer to presentations made by our partners in Climate Action Network Canada: Greenpeace for points 1 through 3, the Pembina Institute for point 4 and Pollution Probe for point 5, as well as to the other organizations and partners who spoke on this issue.

For its part, Équiterre wants to speak on the last two elements, in other words energy efficiency and transportation.

According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 40% of greenhouse gas emission reductions in Canada could be achieved through energy efficiency. Équiterre believes that improving energy efficiency is the way to go, since this is the least costly way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and there is an enormous technological economic potential. Furthermore, this option will create the most jobs per billion dollars invested. It comes as no surprise then that, in the British plan on energy and climate change, energy efficiency measures represent 50% of all GHG emission reduction initiatives.

There are many things that Canada can do in this area, many of which are surprisingly simple. The round table said, in particular, that it was not so much about determining which technology to implement, but rather deciding how to implement nearly all possible technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Équiterre encourages the government to be proactive in adopting regulations prohibiting the sale of products that are not energy efficient.

I want to give a very simple example, and it might seem somewhat insignificant: incandescent light bulbs. We believe that this technology should no longer be sold in Canada. In passing, Australia did just that by announcing, last week, that traditional light bulbs would be banned by 2010. This is the kind of regulation that we want. The resulting energy savings and reduction in greenhouse gases are possible with measures that cost the government very little and push industry to adapt in order to improve energy efficiency.

Naturally, other areas could be regulated, including household appliances and heating and cooling systems, which should not be sold unless they meet the ENERGY STAR program criteria. In other words, instead of making ENERGY STAR an optional incentive program, we propose making it mandatory in order to ensure even greater efficiency.

We estimate that up to 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada come from building operation. Therefore, significant action needs to be taken in this area. Unfortunately, take-up of some programs is insufficient at present. For example, the ecoENERGY Retrofit program offers incentives for owners in order to urge them to invest in energy-saving improvements. However, this program targets barely 140,000 homes over four years! In comparison, the round table previously mentioned advised the government to provide support to at least 165,000 households per year. Équiterre believes that a target of 200,000 would be achievable and more appropriate, given the enormous potential of homes across Canada.

The EnerGuide program, which preceded the ecoENERGY Retrofit program, had demonstrated that we could achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions of 3.9 tonnes on average per home. So this is an interesting program to develop.

If the ecoENERGY Retrofit program remains unchanged, results might not be forthcoming. In fact, the program does not directly relate financial incentives to concrete energy efficiency improvements, whereas the former EnerGuide program did to a greater extent. It would be worthwhile looking more closely at the implementation of this program in order to ensure that targets in which we are investing are being achieved.

Another example of some inconsistency with regard to energy efficiency is the cancellation of the Commercial Building Incentive Program, which has encouraged energy efficiency improvements in buildings since 1998; the Canada Green Building Council recognized the success of this program. It should not only be renewed but also improved.

The Government of Canada should also lead by example in this area. Public Works and Government Services Canada currently requires new buildings to meet the goal-rating of LEED Canada or Leadership in energy and environmental design standard, which is the main standard in green architecture in North America. Équiterre believes that the government can and must do better by aiming for platinum, which is the highest rating, for buildings that it builds itself or rents on a long-term basis. This is an achievable goal, as the Gulf Island National Park Reserve Operations Centre in British Columbia proves, which Parks Canada opened this fall. This is the first building in Canada to have obtained the platinum level accreditation from LEED.

Canada should also reduce the amount of energy being used by the transportation sector. In order to do this, we will need to not only improve vehicle energy efficiency, which is essential, we will also need to review the entire transportation system. Because the criteria used to assess road infrastructure needs in urban areas will need to be reviewed, Équiterre encourages the Government of Canada to impose a moratorium on funding for highways and roads in urban areas. This moratorium should be maintained until Canada has, in particular, adopted a cohesive strategy on urban sprawl. This strategy must then guide the granting of federal funding, as well as the activities of the government itself. In fact, the location of federal buildings, the number and proximity of parking spots provided and incentives related to purchasing transit passes, for example, are factors that influence how government employees travel. In short, we invite the federal government to ensure consistency.

At the same time, Canada must support the construction of strategic infrastructures in order to reduce the number of motorists driving without passengers. London is an inspiring example. Last week, London authorities extended the perimeter of the urban toll system established in 2003, extending to nearly 30 square kilometres the area within which drivers must pay an entrance toll. This measure has cut traffic in the downtown core by 20%, according to Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, who also wants to impose a special tax on the cars generating the most pollution. To date, nitrous oxide has dropped by 13% in London, particle matter by 15% and carbon gas by 16%. In addition to reducing congestion and GHG emissions, the urban toll has generated significant funding for public transit.

With or without an urban toll, the Government of Canada must make significant investments in public transit and alternative transportation.

Équiterre invites the Government of Canada to more closely monitor compliance with the voluntary GHG emissions reduction agreement for cars and vans that it reached with auto manufacturers in April 2005. Équiterre believes that the bill should include an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumptions Standards Act, in order to ensure that vehicle emissions are regulated once the voluntary agreement expires. Should there be any delays in the implementation of this agreement, Équiterre encourages the federal government to immediately adopt legislation to implement California's emissions standards.

Canadian voters are impatiently waiting for the Canadian government to take significant action. A public poll conducted early this year shows that the environment is the top concern of Canadian voters, before health care, the conflict in Afghanistan and the economy. This poll also showed that this is the area in which the government's performance disappointed them the most. In November, the results of a poll also showed that 71% of Canadians felt that the government's plan to deal with pollution and climate change was not ambitious enough. Last month, a new poll confirmed that the environment and climate change are the main concerns of Canadians, and 68% of those polled stated that they were more concerned than last year. Clearly, Canadians remain unhappy. And they have reason to be afraid, since, in 2004, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada exceeded 1990 levels by 27%.

Canada's Clean Air Act will not reassure Canadians. The government must keep its international commitments on climate change. It can no longer withhold its signature from the Kyoto Protocol, and moreover this is undermining its credibility. Canadians want their country to take action in order to stop climate change, which is the greatest crisis facing humanity according to 72% of polled Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Merci.

Next, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have Mr. Gord Steeves. Lead the way for ten minutes, please.

[Gord Steeves, First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

My name is Gord Steeves and I'm the acting president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I'm joined by one of our senior policy analysts, Mary Jane Middelkoop.

As you may be aware, Mr. Chairperson, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the organization that represents virtually all Canadian municipalities, from the very largest to the very smallest, encompassing about 90% of the Canadian population.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I won't speak in detail to all the specific recommendations we are making for Bill C-30. These are spelled out in our submission.

I apologize for not having our brief available in French. It was impossible for us to have both versions ready for today, but we will have the French version tomorrow.

While municipal governments will not be heavily regulated by the proposed Clean Air Act, how it is implemented and its effectiveness are important to Canadian cities and communities. Bill C-30 provides the Government of Canada and Parliament with the opportunity to recognize formally the fundamental role municipal governments play in combatting smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, in its current form, the bill does not meet that criteria. That is why we are proposing specific amendments which I will come back to in a moment.

The 1,500 municipalities that belong to the FCM are already making a significant contribution to Canada's environmental targets. For example, we are taking part in projects to reduce energy consumption, encourage the use of public transit and reduce the amount of garbage sent to landfills.

We could do more. Our current efforts are largely uncoordinated, without an overall plan or design. We could make an even greater contribution to cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within a national plan and with national coordination.

A long-term intergovernmental partnership is the only way to meet the challenges posed by climate change and air pollution. In the framework of this partnership, we will have to redefine and clarify roles and responsibilities based on more functional criteria.

It is essential that Bill C-30 recognize the role of municipal government in meeting Canada's environmental objectives and that it be implemented in partnerships with cities and communities.

The importance of a coordinated intergovernmental action is illustrated by a recent U.S. report. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a U.S.-based think tank, surveyed climate change activities in ten U.S. cities that signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. It found that while cities' commitments are real and in some cases involve significant programs, they face an uphill struggle. Not more than one or two of the ten cities will meet their goal of reducing emissions 0.7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The report found that some cities had hoped to achieve their goals with the help of state and federal policies such as renewable electricity standards, improved vehicle efficiency, and stricter fuel economy standards.

This offers important lessons for Canada. Despite their good intentions, municipal governments cannot meet the challenge to clean the air and stop climate change on their own. Actions by other governments can have a huge impact locally.

On the plus side, subsidies, standards, and incentives can support local efforts. On the negative side, confusing rules and regulations or a failure to provide resources can hinder them.

Coordinated intergovernmental action is needed to ensure that municipal governments can reach their full potential. Our inability to focus the potential of municipal governments would be a lost opportunity.

Municipalities generate emissions through the operation of buildings and facilities and as a consequence of services like waste management, water treatment, and public transit. In addition, we have influence over land use practices, transportation systems, the energy efficiency of community building stock, and the sources of energy used. Efforts to enlist the municipal sector in meeting broad national environmental goals such as FCM's green municipal fund are producing results. However, the scope of the problem as well as the untapped potential of our cities and communities requires more.

The FCM believes that there is a clear opportunity for the federal government to adopt an integrated and strategic approach to clean air and climate change. However, this approach will not be without its challenges. Municipal governments lack the resources and fiscal tools they need to maintain their infrastructure and meet their other responsibilities.

In addition, we may not always have the legislative authority to introduce new fees or levies to promote emission reduction activities.

The FCM submitted a plan to the previous Minister of the Environment for a collaborative approach towards cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We met Minister Ambrose and agreed to strike a joint FCM and Environment Canada working group. The working group was designed to make the partnership real by advising us on the opportunities to work together for cleaner air and lower greenhouse gases in our communities.

The municipalities are prepared to help clean our air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they can start now. We do not need to wait for new legislation in order to start working together. Investments in public transit, energy efficiency and climate change adjustment measures by municipal governments can produce immediate results.

However, framework legislation such as Bill C-30 can and does set the tone for government action. Its silence on municipal government's potential and role in combatting smog and climate change undermines the cooperation necessary for progress. For this reason, we are proposing an amendment to CEPA that recognizes the role of municipal governments.

The FCM recommends that the composition of the CEPA National Advisory Committee, as outlined in part I, subsection 6(2) of CEPA 1999, be amended to require participation of a municipal government representative.

Canada cannot achieve its climate change and clean air targets without the commitment and active participation of municipal governments. And, without this amendment, Bill C-30 will not help to resolve this situation. The municipal governments are prepared to work with the federal government and the governments of the provinces and territories in order to make a concrete and quantifiable contribution to the fight against climate change and air pollution.

Bill C-30 should be amended to recognize the role and place of Canada's cities and communities in combatting smog and climate change. Only then can the legislation serve as the foundation of a credible coordinated national strategy on clean air and climate change.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to our seven-minute round.

Mr. Godfrey, please.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It's good to see the FCM again. We've dealt with each other in the past.

I was wondering when you heard the presentation from Équiterre whether you agreed with the position that in fact Bill C-30 ought to be a more aggressive or ambitious piece of legislation in terms of the various things that Mr. Ribaux spoke of--for example, reaffirming the Kyoto Protocol, setting out targets for the 2008-12 period, having a regime in place for large final emitters. What was your reaction to the ambition of Mr. Ribaux's comments?

[Gord Steeves]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Godfrey.

I can tell you generally that I think our organization would, at worst, certainly have no problem with emission targets being set. However, at best I think we'd be completely accepting of emission targets as aggressive as the government wanted to set them. At the end of the day, I want to stress that municipalities--large, medium, and small--stand ready to do whatever we can today to address greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction thereof, which we're hoping can and shall be done with or without targets, or with or without the agreement on specific targets. While we agree, I think, that targets are very, very important, we also want to stress that we're ready to act right now in any form, while the discussion of targets ensues.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Again to the FCM, we've seen over the last little while provinces specifically agreeing to work towards Kyoto targets, and recognizing Kyoto as an objective. We've seen that with Quebec and British Columbia. We may be seeing it soon with Ontario. We've seen it with Manitoba, where you're from, Mr. Steeves. What is the situation in terms of the specific recognition of Kyoto and the sort of pledge of Canadian cities to do what U.S. cities are doing under the mayors' climate commitment?

[Gord Steeves]

Thank you again for the question.

With specific reference to the Kyoto Protocol, it is accepted FCM policy that the Kyoto Protocol is worth striving for. I should also add that within our organization a lot of individual municipalities across Canada have adopted a commitment towards trying to achieve the Kyoto Protocol. So globally there's the assessment that this is where we are trying to get to, if that answers your question generally with respect to the Kyoto Protocol.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Would it also be true, and I think I'm repeating what you said, that the only way in which we can meet this great national objective, this national project, is for all levels of government to speak to each other and to work collaboratively, and not for one level of government to deal with the municipal sector uniquely through the provinces?

[Gord Steeves]

Absolutely, Mr. Godfrey, and I'm sorry that I missed that part of your question, because that's a huge part of our suggestion as municipal governments from across Canada. We have specific asks in our written presentation, not the least of which is we're recommending that the preamble as talked about in clause 2 of Bill C-30, which talks about the amendment of the preamble of CEPA, be amended to include municipalities as part of the consultation process. Also it goes deeper, in that with respect to clause 18 of Bill C-30, which talks about the amendment of section 103.02 of CEPA, there's some debate as to “may” versus “shall”, wherein the federal government is given the “shall” directive to consult certain sectors of society and then given the “may” option of consulting municipalities. We would certainly like to see that changed in the auspices of the definition of committee, going back to the original legislation, wherein municipalities are simply made a partner of this process going forward.

This is not because we want to step on anyone's toes. We think our ambitions as municipalities ultimately are the exact same ambitions as the federal and provincial governments, but we think we truly have something to offer. Obviously, as everyone at this table is well aware, the lion's share of greenhouse gases is produced in concentrated municipalities, and we think we have something to offer.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Ribaux, has Bill C-30, in its current form, and the various announcements made over the last two months by the Conservative government, resulted in a comprehensive plan to fight climate change?

[Sidney Ribaux]

Clearly, the answer to that question is no. I won't repeat the seven points with which I started my presentation. I will simply say that it is clear that, for Canadians and Quebeckers in particular, with whom we work most closely, climate change is an important issue. To some extent, the Kyoto Protocol is a symbol of this issue.

Our efforts to educate or mobilize the public reference Kyoto for the reasons we have given, including Canada's commitments. A comprehensive strategy must inevitably deal with the issue of large emitters, and regulations for the automobile sector, among others. Until we deal with those aspects, we cannot consider ourselves to have seriously addressed the issue of climate change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bigras, you have seven minutes.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, welcome to the committee this evening to discuss the issue of energy efficiency and Bill C-30.

A few days ago, we heard from a renowned Quebec specialist on climate change, Mr. Claude Villeneuve. He told us it was becoming increasingly difficult to really reduce greenhouse gas emissions, quite simply because the energy policy in Canada was different from coast to coast. The example he gave us was, in fact, the difficulty in maximizing GHG emissions reduction for each dollar invested in the fight against climate change, particularly in the area of buildings.

He also told us that, since 95% of electricity in Quebec comes from hydroelectricity, which is quite different from what happens in the rest of Canada, it was impossible to implement a program such as the EnerGuide program or any other program to maximize GHG emissions reduction for each dollar invested in the fight against climate change.

I believe that 40% of GHG emissions could be avoided if we focused on energy efficiency. The figures are quite telling, and you said so clearly. With regard to energy efficiency, how could we maximize greenhouse gas emission reductions for each dollar invested by the federal government or any other government in the fight against climate change?

My question is for either witness.

[Gord Steeves]

Thank you for the question. I would like to answer in English.

It was an excellent question. I have a pretty good answer.

If the direct question is how can the federal government maximize its efficiency in terms of dollars spent, I might suggest using programs like the program we have in place at the FCM, which we've called green municipal funds. I wouldn't expect members of the committee to necessarily be familiar with the program, but it provides a lump sum to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the amount of about $250 million, which municipal governments can access to do grants to municipalities to do studies for energy efficiency in all the projects they are doing--be it buildings, water and waste, rapid transit, or whatever happens to be the order of the day for that particular municipality. That program is then followed up after the grant with a reduced interest loan, not a grant, to municipalities. The municipalities can access that money and leverage it against their own dollars within their municipality to complete the project.

This is done over and over again in municipalities right across Canada, and this is a project that has been going on for the past several years. It's a wonderful project, and a great example of how it can work. It has the beautiful effect of the federal government being able to loan money, not grant, to the larger extent, and have it matched at the municipal level. It is a good example of how those partnerships can be created. What happens from coast to coast is that you see literally hundreds of projects being done, big projects, in municipalities that are completed and have a great effect on greenhouse gases.

The good news in this story is that in many cities over the years, even though the private sectors, the people going to and fro in the cities, haven't made that marked a decrease, there actually has been a great deal of effect made in Canadian cities--Calgary, Edmonton, for example--where the city administration output has been drastically reduced. They're truly good news stories. When Bill C-30 talks about domestic offset systems and how those can be arranged, groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are ready to step in and act as clearinghouses and aggregators to collect and distribute those types of offset systems that can work. While every municipality is setting its own course for greenhouse gas reduction, there can be a system that amalgamates it, aggregates it, and keeps track of it over time.

There are really some great success stories out there. That would be my answer to some of the issues you pose.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

More concretely—and this is probably what you were referring to when you mentioned some projects—I would like you to tell us about the Benny Farm project in Montreal which received the Bronze award for its sustainable construction. This project received $3 million, I think, from green municipal funds.

I would like to know whether you believe that there are things in this project that we might want to include in Bill C-30 in terms of standards or reference points. With regard to energy efficiency, do you have any recommendations in light of the success of this kind of project?

[Gord Steeves]

Once again, thank you for the question.

I can't speak with any great knowledge of the particular project in Montreal, but I can say, with respect to Bill C-30 in front of the committee and the amendments spoken thereto, in particular subclause 46(2), which talks about amending section 20 of the Energy Efficiency Act, that what we are suggesting with respect to this act is that the federal government establish a continued revolving loan fund to help kick-start municipal energy efficiency projects, including those targeting water and waste water treatment facilities, street lighting, and building energy performance.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has historically found that the method of helping municipalities help themselves with this type of legislation and this type of regulatory framework is best for augmenting already existing critical mass energy at the municipal level. Again, it has the benefit of creating those types of synergies. Hopefully in the discussion the committee will agree with us on the wisdom of putting those programs in place that don't simply offer a handout but offer a partnership. Obviously, incumbent and implicit within that request is that municipal governments continue to be—I don't say become, I say continue to be--partners with the federal government ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, thank you very much.

Let's move on. Mr. Cullen, for seven minutes, please.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

I have a small question for Mr. Ribaux. There's been some debate as to who's the source of the problem in Canada. I read an article in the National Post this past weekend in which the leader of my party described the need to green the tar sands in Alberta. And I read a letter to the editor coming back today saying it's not Alberta's fault, but it's Ontario's and Quebec's fault because Ontario and Quebec consume all the energy; Alberta simply produces it. How useful is this conversation in terms of us achieving the types of changes we need in our economy in this country? How productive is the conversation you've seen as to whose fault it is, which province or which particular jurisdiction?

[Sidney Ribaux]

I would like to respond by saying that I don't think it's a matter of laying blame; we are facing a problem. Humanity is facing one of its greatest crises in its history and we need to find solutions. Your committee, government, Parliament, have to find solutions. There are things we can do if we want to attack the root of the problem. Quite clearly, in Alberta and Ontario, there are some very large emitters. We have to deal with them. There are ways to ensure energy savings and change consumption. Cars and houses we buy are contributing to the problem because, in fact, we are consuming. I think that your committee should come up with a plan of attack, on all levels, for the government of Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One thing you commented on is that as the bill sits right now and what you've seen from the government, there isn't an overall plan to meet our targets. Initially, when the government took office it announced a transit pass incentive--people could write off taxes. It was costed out at $2,000 a tonne for savings. How effective was this use of taxpayers' dollars in terms of meeting our Kyoto target?

[Sidney Ribaux]

This brings me back to Mr. Bigras' question.

We have to be careful: some measures have multiple benefits. For example, improving access to transit has a very significant impact on the cost of infrastructure within a municipality, on quality of life, access to transportation for low-income earners, workers and so on. So, we cannot assess that kind of measure solely by calculating greenhouse gas emissions, although that is potentially one of the spin-offs.

The other aspect I want to mention, to come back to Mr. Bigras' question, is that the investments and regulations you make today will lead to significant reductions in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. That is why we are talking about an overall energy efficiency plan, an overall transportation plan. We have to consider what you do in terms of short-term, intermediate-term and long-term targets. That is how all measures need to be considered. The initiative you mentioned is interesting if it is part of an overall transportation plan, but, when taken alone, it is not easy to calculate the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Steeves, again, your organization, the FCM, represents virtually every municipality, large and small, in this country. You made a brief mention in your testimony of the joint working group, that you had agreed with the previous Minister of the Environment to work together. What's happened with it?

[Gord Steeves]

Thank you for the question.