Natural Resources committee  We would actually disagree with that and say that we could meet our Paris targets and actually stimulate parts of our economy. I think there are opportunities, but it's really about defining and looking at systems change with a broader perspective. If all you have is tunnel vision on greenhouse gas emissions and if the only thing you're trying to change about our energy systems is our greenhouse gas emissions, then I would agree.

Natural Resources committee  Energy systems in Canada—

Natural Resources committee  I'm talking about our energy systems as our transportation system—our mobility system, for example. What we're saying is that what this is about is directing disruption. We live in a world of major disruptive change. Look at the last 20 years and the huge impacts on our retail sector, our telecommunications sector, on the movies, the books, etc.

Natural Resources committee  It also might include reducing accidents, reducing the health care costs of our transportation system, helping in urban redesign, and reducing the cost of personal mobility to the average Canadian family, but that is about—

Natural Resources committee  Working out the details with other organizations that are playing a very valuable role is critical, so I could easily see the main house being within government, while supporting other organizations to help in delivering the most efficient and effective product.

Natural Resources committee  One thing I can say in terms of the cost is that there are already considerable resources being spent now within the government to collect data. Some of that could actually be aligned better, I would argue, because you have different departments, and obviously we need to be looking at how we work with groups outside of the government.

Natural Resources committee  Well, not the provinces so much. This is mostly federal. The provinces do collect some information and they're feeding it in, but Statistics Canada has significant investments that they're doing already in collecting energy data. You have Transport Canada, Agriculture Canada, and Natural Resources Canada all involved.

Natural Resources committee  I'm open to different models. Ultimately, I'm interested in the product. I think there's a role for inside and outside organizations, but ultimately the question is, how do you bring it together to make sure you have a coordinated overall response? It was about 45 years ago or so, in the 1973 oil crisis, that the United States set up its Energy Information Administration.

Natural Resources committee  The quality of a model often is highly dependent on the value of the data that goes into it. What we do is we go back and collect historical data, relying on CDIAC and other organizations in Canada, going back to 1980 or 1990, to look at the trends. We build our computer models to try to actually simulate what's happened in the past.

Natural Resources committee  Bradford, why don't you answer? You probably have a better idea of what the costs would be.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you for the question. I think it's an excellent one. As Bradford just noted, sometimes we have data on national information but not down to provincial levels. As we all know, energy is a provincial responsibility in Canada. If we have to engage the provinces in an energy transition, they're interested in the economic benefits, they're interested in reducing the environmental footprint, and they're interested in supporting their industries and creating jobs, etc., so we need that provincial data.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to make a few comments initially about why we need energy data. I would argue that we need it because we live in a world of very rapid change. In most cases, these changes arise from outside of government as the result of technology, business model, or social innovation.