Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think this is a really important question, and I'm sure I won't do it justice in the time we have. Let me say a couple things in terms of principles of work.
The first principle is that, worldwide, including in Canada, climate finance has had a very significant portion associated with debt and equity financing rather than grant financing. While I understand why that aspiration might be there, I think it's very optimistic to think that the dire climate needs we have can be adequately addressed through resources that are non-grant resources and that are going to have to be paid back somehow. There is absolutely room for so-called innovative finance work here, but I would say that it is a very particular response; it's not going to be the generalized response.
The second thing is that I think we probably have to be much more analytically precise about the specific issues, country by country, where we think we can make a real contribution. Let me take clean energy as an example. In many parts of the world, we have a situation where we have both climate fragility and energy poverty. That is to say, we need to expand massively the amount of energy available. At the same time, we're going to be much more conscious about carbon footprints. We need to bring a lot of innovation to the ability of countries to develop energy security plans that convert resources in those countries into sustainable energy sources. How expert are we at that right now? What's the relationship of our funding to that massive question?
The last example would be in agriculture. There is a massive opportunity for us to do much more in climate-smart agriculture. It's a very significant issue around the world. I think we have lots of opportunities to partner with communities. My sense is that if we walk toward communities with ideas here, they will run toward us.
We need to make a commitment, and I think that a lot of this is going to have to be grant.