I get that, but what I've appreciated is the many witnesses who have come in who've actually been contracted by the Government of Canada to do retrofits in their buildings. Also, in the NRCan testimony, they talk a lot about the actual savings over time from having expended money, invested in energy retrofits. I'm simply raising that point, suggesting that it may be good to start talking more about the energy savings to taxpayers, instead of only focusing on the carbon reductions.
I wonder if I could go to NRCan, because my time is tight, and then I'll go back to both of you after.
I notice in your testimony that you are talking a lot about these performance contracts. We heard a lot of different testimony about that. Only on Tuesday we had two witnesses say they don't necessarily always recommend a performance contract because it can add between 20% to 40% of the cost of doing the retrofit. What some of our witnesses recommended instead was the use of in-house strategic plans using external energy efficiency experts, thereby having a long-term plan. In other words, they recommended moving away from the one-off, performance-based contracts, and instead now looking at the measures that could be done, and costing those over time.
I wonder if you could speak to that. Why does NRCan seem to be singularly focused on these expensive performance contracts?