Yes, I think addressing the economic impacts and implications of our energy security is absolutely a role for this committee and any type of national energy strategy or discussion. We see provinces like Ontario and Quebec investing heavily in the transition to cleaner energy sources—getting off coal in Ontario, and Quebec of course has hydro power—and creating jobs in that process, thereby receiving some economic benefit for it.
I think until we have a national-level discussion and debate about how to deal with some of the negative impacts of increased tar sands production, it's hard for us to come to a true national energy strategy. We need to figure out how to look at examples like Norway, how to adapt to that, and then have an honest discussion about the pace and scale of energy development in Canada, particularly fossil fuels, in light of the need to address climate change.
There is one issue related to regional fairness that I didn't bring up in my earlier remarks. As we trek toward a federal system to reduce global warming pollution, to reduce greenhouse gases, we have a set target for the country. In theory, we have a hard limit on greenhouse gas emissions. If one sector continues to grow quite rapidly, what that risks doing is squeezing other sectors of the economy into a smaller and smaller piece of the carbon budget. Some in the oil industry, including Mr. Coutu, on a tour to Ontario last year, think that's okay and should be allowed. But from the perspective of an aluminum plant in Quebec or the forestry industry in Ontario, it probably isn't that palatable.
Should one sector be allowed to grow and squeeze everyone else into greater reductions as a result? Or do we need to actually set some absolute limits on polluting industries like the tar sands?