Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, gentlemen. Thanks for appearing. Perhaps I can fire out a couple of questions and then you can decide amongst yourselves how to answer best.
Post-election there's been a lot of talk that's been very confusing for Canadians about the Kyoto Protocol--our obligations thereunder, how far emissions have increased. The UN says 24, the government says 36. Yesterday the Minister of Justice actually said on the floor, in a debate related to other matters, that there was no evidence underpinning the Kyoto Protocol. He actually said that.
First off, what is the position of the Energy Dialogue Group on the Kyoto Protocol? That's question one.
Two, Ontario is now running a series of advertisements on television about conservation costs being lower than generation costs. Just as we know that $80 oil is having a direct bearing on the economics of oil sands, I guess we're to assume that this kind of cost is also having an impact on potential conservation technologies, conservation efficiencies, and so on. Perhaps you could comment on that.
Third, why aren't you called the Energy “and Environment” Dialogue Group? Why wouldn't, for example, environmental groups be working with you hand in glove to come up with a more inclusive position on energy, going forward?
Finally, you talk about efficiency in metrics. Can you tell us how far your sectors have gone in terms of metrics--things like energy intensity, materials intensity, water intensity? We can't meaningfully compare your industries now. We can't even compare companies within your sectors. It's often apples and oranges, bananas and grapefruits. Can you give us some idea of how far the thinking has gone in metrics?