Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to the EnerGuide. The Deputy Minister of Natural Resources was here and said that 12¢ out of every dollar was administrative, and 38¢ was the pre- and post-audit, which any reasonable person would say was required.
I think the fundamental question is whether that program was getting bang for the overall buck, and that would be in comparison with alternatives. So if the new government comes in and replaces this program, I'd be very curious to see what kinds of evaluative tools they've used to model the fact that a new program will get better results. We know that most of the homes were getting a 30% increase in energy efficiency. I think it is a valid question. Is that a good performance in relation to the inputs that go into that program?
Madame Commissioner, I'd like it if you could comment on a couple of things. Frankly, we hear from the other party notions like, “We don't really need to be worried about greenhouse gases, because Canada is a bit player. What we should be doing is focusing on clean air.” Clean air, as you know, is a different scenario from greenhouse gases. They are interconnected somewhat, but they're totally different concepts.
We also hear that maybe there are some sectors that have to contribute more. We've heard a lot about the automotive sector, about the transportation sector. Frankly, and I'm not getting into a partisan statement--well, I guess I am--I haven't yet heard the Minister of the Environment talk about the contribution of the oil and gas sector.
It seems to me if we're going to deal with greenhouse gases in a real way we're going to have to get a contribution from the large emitters--the oil and gas sector, the manufacturing sector, the transportation sector--and citizens as a whole are going to have to try to change behaviour.
I wonder if you would comment on some of those points. I'd be interested in your perspective.