Back to the criteria question, I can remember one of this government's first initiatives was around the transit pass subsidy to transit riders. It was then later deemed that the cost per tonne was in the $2,000 range. It was seen as an extraordinarily expensive way to go about it, if your main intention was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was a way to do it, but it was an expensive way to do it.
My question is, as the government is making decisions--and I have some serious concerns about the ecoTrust, but I'll leave that aside--about where to allocate those resources, clearly cost-effectiveness must be one of the leading criteria, and I'm mystified as to why that's not more prominent.