I'll just make a quick comment about the Species at Risk Act. The reason why it has been such a failure goes back to the architecture of the act itself. It's an act that really inhibits citizens. I come from a farming and resource constituency and my constituents do a lot of voluntary conservation work, but the coercive nature of the Species at Risk Act is a grave weakness. I would urge the department to move from an enforcement approach to the conservation of species at risk to an incentive approach.
My question relates to how you develop policy within the department. I'm specifically referring to the policies related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and all of that.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy a couple of years ago put out a report called “Achieving 2050”. I was on the round table at the time when that report came out. The report, as I recall, looked at the economic impact of a cap and trade system, which seems to be off the table in North America. Nevertheless, it was an analysis of what a cap and trade program would do to the economy of the country.
One thing in particular stuck out for me, and even more so now that I am a member of Parliament for a remote rural constituency. The economic impact of a lot of these programs is disproportionately felt by people who live in rural areas or have low income.
I don't think there has been nearly enough discussion about the effect of a lot of the stuff on low-income Canadians and rural Canadians, because low-income people in this country, as well as rural people, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy. Even though the majority of Canadians live in cities, what I really worry about is that too much policy is designed for urban Canada, which is fine, but often the needs of rural Canadians and low-income Canadians—and the two are often synonymous—are not considered.
In your department, when you're looking at these kinds of programs and policies, do you do an economic impact analysis and do you specifically look at the effect of what you're proposing on rural Canada and low-income Canadians?