:
Thank you, Chair. It's always a pleasure to visit.
Let me start off by expressing my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the 2013-2016 draft federal sustainable development strategy.
As you said, I'll begin with a brief statement. I'd like to better introduce to the committee Andrea Lyon, who is my associate deputy minister, and with her is Tony Young, director general of the sustainability directorate and head of the sustainable development office.
We'll be pleased to answer questions after these opening remarks.
Mr. Chair, I'll begin by reflecting for a moment on the origins and evolution of the Federal Sustainable Development Act, back to when the office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was created in 1995 and amendments to the Auditor General Act required the federal government to prepare and to table individual departmental sustainable development strategies. The first system did not work. It did not deliver the intended results. Successive audits between 1997 and 2008 examined various strategies and their outcomes, but without a government-wide strategy, environmental sustainability issues were often pushed to the margins of federal planning and reporting. There were no common goals or targets and no way to measure federal accomplishments.
Our government took action in 2008, and with all-party support the Federal Sustainable Development Act was passed. Two years later we delivered the federal sustainable development strategy. The FSDS, which today remains very much a work in progress, is achieving the original intent: a strategy that makes environmental decision-making both more transparent and accountable. The FSDS provided Canadians for the first time with a comprehensive picture of actions right across government that contribute to environmental sustainability. This integrated whole-of-government picture was provided, as you know, under four key themes: climate change and air quality, water, nature, and of course, greening our government operations.
The FSDS improves the way the federal government plans for sustainable development, and it addresses weaknesses of the old system that had been noted a number of times by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The strategy ensures that environmental objectives are a foundational piece in the government's decision-making processes. It does so by incorporating sustainable development planning and reporting into the government's core expenditure planning and reporting system, as well as integrating it into the strategic environmental assessment process.
Effective measurement, monitoring and reporting are crucial not only to track our progress but also to ensure that Canadians can follow and watch these changes. The federal sustainable development strategy has been well received by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, by the environmental organizations, and by the business community. I'm pleased to report that significant progress has been observed in the three-year interval between 2010 to 2013. Departments and agencies now produce annual departmental sustainable development strategies that are integrated into their core planning and reporting processes and are linked to the overarching federal strategy. As part of our ongoing commitment to measurement, monitoring, and reporting, we have issued two progress reports, as you know, and have expanded our suite of environmental indicators that support federal sustainable development strategy reporting.
I'll detail some of the areas in which the 2012 progress report itemizes what I believe is impressive progress. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving our natural environment, and ensuring the quality of our air and water. As you know, we have an effective sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we've already taken action on two of Canada's largest sources of emissions: transportation and electricity. By the time 2025-model-year cars hit our roads, it's estimated that vehicles will be consuming 50% less fuel and producing 50% fewer emissions compared to 2008 models.
In the coal-fired electricity sector, Canada is the first country in the world to ban construction of traditional technology coal plants. Emissions from the electricity sector are projected to decline by one-third by 2020, compared to 2005 levels. Fully three-quarters of our electricity is now generated without the emission of greenhouse gases. Canada has an electricity system that is one of the cleanest in the world, and it will get even cleaner.
Our government has also shown that economic growth and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive. Our 2012 progress report also shows we're making progress with the Great Lakes contaminated sites, the areas of concern, and with protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, across Canada. This brings the total protected areas in Canada to about 10%, or the equivalent of a territory the size of France, Germany, and Austria combined.
These are only some of our achievements to date. I'd now like to turn to the steps we'll be taking to move environmental sustainability forward as indicated in the draft 2013-2016 federal sustainable development strategy, which we released for public consultations in February.
The new strategy outlines an improved framework of sustainable development planning and reporting. It builds on key improvements that we introduced in our 2010 federal sustainable development strategy, but moreover, it underscores our continuing commitment to transparency. Building on the goals and the targets already in place, this new version expands the whole-of-government picture of federal activities aimed at achieving environmental sustainability.
We've expanded the scope of federal actions to include new targets and implementation strategies on climate change adaptation. Great progress has been made in strengthening existing targets, particularly in terms of nutrient loading in the Great Lakes, Lake Simcoe, and Lake Winnipeg, and with actions in regard to marine pollution.
At the same time, it's important to note that new and more specific targets will be added to reflect decisions made since the draft strategy was released in February. For example, the new Canadian ambient air quality standards published by Environment Canada and Health Canada are more stringent than current U.S. standards for particulate matter and ground-level ozone, two pollutants of concern to human health and of course the major components of smog.
We'll turn next in the clean air area to development of new industrial emissions regulations of pollutants such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides along with the provinces and territories as part of the new air quality management system. Of course data generated through our partnership with Alberta on oil sands monitoring will continue to be collected and posted on our new Web portal.
We've also expanded the range of indicators to track progress on the strategies, goals, and targets. As a matter of fact, since our first strategy, we have increased the number of indicators to some 36 targets in the 2012 progress report. Work is now under way to increase the number of indicators to more than 40 for better measurement and reporting under the 2013-2016 strategy. Furthermore, it aligns with sustainable development commitments with various departmental performance reporting.
In addition, it builds on the progress we've made in the greening government operations in the areas of real property, fleet, procurement, and general office operations. This new strategy has also been expanded to include clean air agenda reporting commitments, water agreements with Ontario and Manitoba, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, of course, our commitment to a national conservation plan, and Canada's domestic response to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
At the same time it continues to support the integration of sustainable development into our decision-making process through strategic environmental assessments and green procurement.
Now we're asking for the people's input, including from this committee.
As you know, the public consultations process on the draft federal sustainable development strategy is currently under way. We are also engaging a wide range of stakeholders including the Sustainable Development Advisory Council and the interim Commissioner of the Environment, who will be speaking to you about some of his observations on the draft strategy a little later this morning. As with the case with the 2010 strategy, the commissioner's comments will contribute along with input from other consultations into the final strategy to be released this fall.
In response we've received over 40,000 visits to the FSDS website, and we expect substantial input from Canadians as the consultation period draws to a close in mid-June. The final strategy, as you know, will be tabled in Parliament in the fall, greatly informed by the feedback we receive from this committee and from other interventions.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to close by emphasizing that Canada has a very good story to tell regarding our efforts to promote sustainable development at both the domestic and international levels.
We are making concrete progress across the full range of environmental priorities identified in the strategy. The federal government's innovative approach is bringing more transparency and more accountability to environmental decision-making. We are also strengthening sustainable development, which will benefit Canadians today and well into the future.
Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I'd be delighted to field questions.
Thank you, Minister, for being here with us this morning.
You talked a lot about the environmental footprint. In fact, chapter 4 discusses little else. However, a recent report indicates that in 2011, one additional megatonne of GHG was emitted into the atmosphere, as compared to 2010 levels. You know very well that the previous Commissioner of the Environment and the report of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy both expressed serious doubts regarding the reduction of emissions and attaining the objectives by 2020.
In addition, the Canadian hydrocarbon industry intends to develop 14 new coal, gas and oil extraction projects over the next few years. Between now and 2020, they would produce a quantity of CO2 emissions equivalent of that of the United States. We are talking about 300 billion tonnes of new emissions from now until 2050. The oil sands will emit up to 420 million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, and there is still no regulation, sector by sector, in this area, regarding GHG.
Last May 16, on its website, the World Bank talked about the importance of setting a price on carbon to fight climate change. Moreover, with all due respect, the provinces are the ones that have made all of the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Quebec and California have set up a carbon exchange.
Regarding greenhouse gases, I want to know, sector by sector, on what science your approach is based, and what are the costs involved.
:
With respect to your question and the preceding question, the methodology Canada uses to measure the anticipated achievement of our 2020 emission reduction targets is accepted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The numbers are checked, and the changes....
Again, there was a mistake in the assumption by the previous questioner in that we shouldn't be measuring the annual inventory numbers that we report in terms of emissions. We should be looking at the benefits that our regulatory approach and the actions of the provinces, territories, industry, and individual Canadians will have in achieving the outcomes by 2020.
With regard to the oil sands, there's been some wonderful news, which again has not been widely covered in the pages of our newspapers. A large new plant, Imperial Oil's Kearl plant in Alberta, has developed and opened a mine and gone on stream. The new technology they're using is a frothing technology, which I haven't seen. We haven't seen proof of their expectations, but they say that in this particular operation, they will reduce their emissions intensity to almost that of conventional oil once they get fully up and on stream.
We need to recognize that since 1990, for example, emissions intensity in the oil and gas sector, including the oil sands, has decreased by 26%. It is the intention.... The industry is committed to further reducing emissions intensity and to complying with the regulations, which we are now completing. The oil sands operators themselves have made a commitment to reduce their emissions intensity to that of conventional oil just as soon as possible, again using technology and better practices.
I think there is good news, both in our sector-by-sector approach and in the cooperation of industry, again ensuring that we continue in the still fragile economic recovery in terms of some global uncertainty but at the same time we do our part to address climate change.
[English]
It's a pleasure to share our views on the draft federal sustainable development strategy. I'm joined today by Jim McKenzie, a senior colleague in the office.
Under the Federal Sustainable Development Act, I'm required to review the draft strategy and provide comments to the Minister of the Environment by June 14. We are still finalizing our review. Today I am providing our initial findings.
We are strong proponents of the requirement for a federal sustainable development strategy. It responds to concerns we expressed numerous times, as the minister noted, culminating in our 2007 report when we concluded that the existing process was not working. We recommended that the government establish overall federal goals for sustainable development.
[Translation]
We believe the strategy is essential as a means for the government to explain its environmental and sustainable development plan. We have found to date that the strategy addresses environmental issues that are indeed relevant and important to Canadians. A number of improvements are needed, however, for it to achieve its full potential. The strategy needs to be more complete and clear.
The strategy's intent is to build a whole-of-government picture by ensuring that it addresses important challenges and problems. However, we found it to be incomplete in some respects. First, some key initiatives are missing, such as the government's responsible resource development agenda and plans to monitor water, land and biodiversity in the oil sands region.
As well, the strategy does not include an indication of the resources that will be allocated to deliver on the targets and implementation strategies.
[English]
For the strategy to be clear, its targets and implementation strategies must also be clear and measurable. They provide the basis for assessing and reporting on the strategy's goals. They are also an important part of good accountability and transparency. In this regard, most of the 34 targets lack sufficient clarity, which will make it difficult to assess progress over the short and long term.
An example is target 2.3, to reduce risk to Canadians and impacts on the environment and human health posed by harmful substances emitted to air. That target specifies neither the extent of this reduction nor timeframe, both critical for assessing progress.
[Translation]
Other targets are sufficiently clear. For instance, target 1.1 aims to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, relative to 2005 emission levels. Target 4.4 aims to improve the condition of at least one ecological integrity indicator in 20 national parks by 2015.
We found that almost all of the implementation strategies are directly linked to their respective targets. However, much more needs to be done to make them clear and measurable. We also found that the large number of implementation strategies—over 200—makes it difficult to determine which ones are most critical. For example, one target has 50 implementation strategies. Highlighting the most important of these would help communicate the government's sustainable development priorities.
[English]
I'm pleased to report that there are some key improvements from the previous strategy, which covered 2010 to 2013. For example, a section related to reducing the government's environmental footprint, theme IV, is more strategic and focused. We believe this section provides a useful model for other parts of the strategy. Also, indicators have been introduced, which should be helpful in measuring progress on its goals and targets.
In conclusion, the strategy addresses environmental issues that are relevant and important to Canadians, but because it's not sufficiently complete or clear as yet, its potential for communicating the government's environmental and sustainable development plan is not fully realized. With a number of improvements, some easily achieved, the strategy would become a valuable tool for showing Canadians how the government is addressing the environmental and sustainable development issues we face.
Mr. Chair, your committee can play an important role in that process of improvement. I commend you for the attention you're giving today to this draft strategy. I would urge the committee to also study the report on progress, released in February, on progress on the very first strategy.
The strategy and progress report should be useful to your committee and its members on an ongoing basis, since everything related to the federal environmental and sustainable development activities should be in there. By regularly using these reports, you create an environment where improvements are much more likely to take place.
We hope that our review will prove useful to the development of this strategy.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. We would be happy to answer the committee's questions.
Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to be here today to reflect on the draft federal SDS. Our CEO, Scott Vaughan, extends his regrets. He's in China working with decision-makers on new programs basically to help China improve its SD management practices.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development has been facilitating the transition to development futures that are more sustainable for about 20 years now. We've been working actively at home from our base in Canada and abroad as a non-partisan thought leader building partnerships and engaging policy-makers in government, business, and civil society.
Currently we're working in about 45 countries. Recently we reviewed 15 global sustainable development strategies. This work basically informs some of our input and thinking today which we share with you.
While IISD has witnessed the rise of sustainable development as a unifying concept, we have also witnessed its calcification under the environment pillar alone, where SD now essentially equals environment. This has raised the risk that SD as a unifying frame could be perhaps passé, with a limited ability to help achieve national development aspirations. But a renewed shift in the SD landscape has recently emerged where there's an increasing recognition that environmental, economic, and social linkages need to be more tightly bundled and thought of in policy development.
In Canada, for example, we are seeing an interesting trend towards revealing the economic value of ecosystem goods and services that is strengthening on-the-ground efforts to manage wetlands, grasslands, and watersheds, helping farming communities, ecosystem users, and conservationists alike. In a sense, we're starting to come full circle where SD as practised is starting to better align with SD as originally conceived under the Brundtland commission over 25 years ago.
The federal government is in good company with the hundred or so countries that have published national sustainable development strategies globally. SD strategies are clearly the vehicle of choice for governments around the world to translate SD policy into practice. In 2012, as I indicated, we reviewed about 32 of these hundred or so global SD strategies to look for lessons learned and to assess the global state of play. Again, our findings are informative and influence our thinking and our presentation here today.
While we found that success hinges on many things—SD is a complex issue—two elements are worth noting within the context of the draft federal SDS. First, an ideal SDS emphasizes good governance and enables implementation, so SD strategies are both governance reform agendas and a north star to signal expectations within and outside government. Successful SD strategies build on elements of good governance, including transparency, accountability, evaluation, and performance reporting. They then commit resources to the SDS agenda in an open and transparent manner, signalling priorities, while implementation road maps make clear the actions that are to come to support the aspirations contained in the SD strategies.
Success hinges on horizontal integration and a dynamic forward-looking view. This is important. I'll pick this up later. There is no doubt that ineffective integration between institutions within and outside government and a myopic focus on environment alone impede SDS success. Integration needs to move beyond the environment pillar, truly enabling horizontal implementation to broaden the SD constituency, both within and outside government. Core central agencies are key to poking and prodding for more horizontal integration and coordination, and for achieving success.
Related is a more forward-looking and strategic view that goes beyond short-term departmental plans and priorities, and addresses long-term uncertainties and risks. Basically, what are we doing? Where are we going? What risks do we need to identify?
With those general observations, I'll now jump more specifically into six recommendations or observations on the draft SDS.
Not surprisingly, we see the federal SDS as currently constructed as a clearinghouse for environment programs. There are long lists in the back of the SDS. There's a need to rethink the singular pillar in the SDS and broaden the focus to more closely align with the balanced view of SDS, the original intent of SD, sustainable development.
While housing the SDS in Environment Canada makes sense, consolidating and centralizing what has been a diffuse function in the past across many departments, it also reinforces the stereotype that SD is an environment issue alone, which we think is a significant risk.
As an environmental clearinghouse, this SDS is less useful as a strategic forward-looking SD document. Our observation is that the draft SDS at best provides a snapshot in time with a limited strategic view and road map for success. A longer term and more integrated view would strengthen this SDS.
We think there's a need to communicate SDS linkages more clearly. Priority areas in the draft SDS have large economic and social consequences and have positive environmental outcomes.
We know, for example, that climate long ago moved from an environmental issue to an economic issue. That explains why we haven't moved on the file. Recently, the head of the IMF concurred in Davos this year and said that climate is the single biggest issue facing economies in the 21st century. This is certainly the case in Canada where the government's sector-based GHG regulations will likely pose costs. These costs are published in the Canada Gazette, part II, and are in the order of $30 billion between now and 2030.
These aren't our estimates. They come right out of the regulatory impact analysis statements. Clearly, these have significant impacts on consumers and households for an environmental outcome. We need to better translate and talk about these linkages and better communicate and articulate the trade-offs of federal policy.
The SDS could be more transparent. There's a deluge of priority indicators and implementation strategies in the back of the document that are confusing to parliamentarians, the public, and certainly to us. There's a need to simplify priority indicators under a few key areas and go deep on those, as well as outline implementation road maps, articulate financial disbursements, and indicate performance reporting in these priority areas.
I have two more quick points.
One is the need to improve financial reporting. It's hard to understand priorities and disbursements in the current document; in fact, it's almost impossible. You have to dig into plans and priorities and other documents to understand what is being allocated to these programs, what the priorities are, and the size of activities. We think improved financial performance reporting would strengthen the document and be more realistic.
Two, there's always a gap in plans between aspirations and actions. We see it in everything we do. Being more realistic and not so aspirational would realign and fix more realistic expectations. We think a more realistic accounting of what we want to do and where we want to go would help.
For these reasons we think some additional effort is required to make the draft FSDS more transparent, more strategic, and perhaps more balanced to reflect the core elements of SD.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer your questions and explore these issues.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I'm delighted to have an opportunity to speak to you today about a subject which I am very passionate about, and so is the team at SDTC.
I would like to draw your attention to the materials we've handed out. We'll address this from the perspective of an entity that has truly integrated all elements of sustainable development into its decision-making.
We were created by the Government of Canada through an act of Parliament. We essentially build clean technologies. We help to ensure that they make it out to market, for it is only in the marketplace that the environmental returns occur. We have responsibility for two funds; both of them are complementary, and as I said, help to take these technologies and companies to the marketplace.
If you direct your attention to slide 3, you'll see that we've been able to engage different companies and technologies across the entire country. You can see that they are able to contribute to our economy, whether that be in urban locations or rural communities.
There's a different emphasis in clusters of capacity. In British Columbia, you tend to see a focus on different kinds of power generation. There's energy exploration, not surprisingly, in Alberta, and waste management in Quebec. Given Ontario's vast industrial base, we see clean technology solutions for increasing efficiency in the utilization of energy, whether that be for industry, commercial buildings, or the retail sector.
Moving on, and perhaps picking up on Mr. Sawyer's comments, you have to see economic returns from these companies. We have been able to build companies that have shown about $400 million in revenues in 2012 and have created 7,000 jobs.
This is just 22 of the 245 companies that are in our portfolio. We are tracking their results specifically. We actually interview them. These are not made-up numbers. You can see that by 2015 we anticipate over $5 billion in revenues and about 24,000 jobs created, and there will be more to come.
If you look at the environmental impacts under climate change, we are reporting an impact of between 7 and 17 megatonnes by 2015 from the entire portfolio. I'd like to draw your attention to the care we take in how we report these. These numbers are essentially reduced to accommodate risk factors by between 80% and 94%. This is a significant impact, but by indicating a range we're being very careful. It's a powerful indicator of what we need to do to move forward.
If you look at the next slide on clean air, these emissions are really.... The benefits are largely captured in smog areas where there is a density of both urban living and also transportation. We've looked at the impact on the smog airsheds and how the avoided health costs can be measured as a result of implementing these technologies. You can see that for 81 of our portfolio companies in the transportation and power generation sectors, we anticipate about $1.5 billion of avoided health-related costs by 2025.
I will move to an area where in fact SDTC has shown leadership in trying to quantify the impacts on soil and water. Those are very difficult, depending on your watershed, the kind of chemical you're avoiding, or whether it's water conservation. What you're seeing is roughly $60 million in avoided health costs by 2025 that are linked to these.
If we talk about what we're going to do internationally, clearly the markets in Canada are limited and our GHG impacts are global, so we are moving toward trying to increase Canada's share of the global clean tech market. That is going to increase significantly. By 2020, if we double our share of the market—currently it's 1%—we will be able to generate some $60 billion in revenues and 126,000 jobs.
Looking at the examples of companies that can deliver those so it's not just a wish list, you've got some compound annual growth and revenue statistics for some of our companies which show that Canada is building globally competitive companies.
Where we are working in specific sectors, looking at the slide with the heading “Helping to “Green" Oil and Gas”, you will see we have taken two views. One is around improving the efficacy of the extraction of both oil and gas using different kinds of technologies that reduce the use of water and the use of energy. We have a number of examples which have shown that these areas of opportunity are realistic. The other area we look at is pipelining and whether we can make sure we are detecting potential flaws before there are failures and therefore direct the company to effectively manage the safety of the pipelines and fix them as needed. That work is also very successful.
There was some discussion around buildings. The next slide talks about a very broad portfolio we have of energy efficiency technologies, whether it be dimmable fluorescent ballasts, or ice storage for load balancing and energy reduction—a lot of lighting technologies take up about 20% of a commercial building's energy usage—and then control systems as well.
Moving to the transportation sector, which is one of the largest polluters for Canada but also important globally, SDTC has a portfolio that treats the vehicles as a system. We're looking at advanced materials, light-weighting—for every 10 % in weight reduction, there's a 7% reduction in fuel use—and also fuel cells and advanced batteries that can work for hybrid vehicles.
Quickly touching on providing solutions in regulated industries, I think SDTC is a primary example of how we can work with the regulated companies to find solutions which they may adopt so that in time they are able to respond effectively to those regulations, and that they bring about the intended results.
We do this in a wide range of areas, not surprisingly, working extensively with the power utilities, waste management, the oil and gas sector, and looking at clean water regulations. We are a backup, if you like, in enabling to act for the various regulatory policies the government is putting forward.
How do we ensure that we are working across the government? Slide 15 shows you the kinds of things we're doing to ensure there is linkage and continuity. We've partnered with Export Development Canada to ensure that we have a way of reaching out to those global markets by identifying great companies. EDC has provided analysis of the great markets we can tackle and also supports policies and instruments to manage risk for those companies going into the global markets.
We work a lot with NRCan on the green mining initiative, for example. We work a lot with them. We work with Environment Canada on their environmental technology verification initiative. We interface with NRC IRAP to ensure there is continuity in the ecosystem for clean tech development. We fed a number of SDTC companies to the Canadian innovation commercialization program under Public Works to ensure that those companies get an opportunity to be adopted by the government. We work, again not surprisingly, with DFAIT on their clean-tech advisory board to ensure we're putting our best foot forward in international markets. There's significant collaboration across the federal family.
Moving out into the provinces, SDTC has been involved in the design and development of a number of provincial funds. We're working directly on due diligence sharing and shared investments in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. These provincial partnerships have provided an additional $132 million of provincial money into the SDTC portfolio companies.
Moving out to the international arena, I would add that the fast-track funds that have been put forward by this government, for example to International Finance Corporation, we have been working with them to ensure Canadian company access.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for the question.
My predecessor, Mr. Vaughan, completed a study on financial subsidies. That was included in our report in February. I am not an expert in this area, but we noted a few points of interest during that study, that is to say regarding most of the subsidies.
I apologize, but I am going to answer in English because I don't know the terminology in French regarding these subsidies.
[English]
We concluded that the biggest single subsidy at the moment is the accelerated capital cost allowance. That is being phased out, and the minister did mention that. The two largest ones that remain are tax expenditures. Those are, as was mentioned, the Canadian development—I have my copy in French here, so if I'm totally confused, excuse me—tax expenditure and the exploration one.
One of the things we noted in that study is that while we could put a price tag against the accelerated capital cost allowance, Finance isn't in a position to estimate what the tax expenditures actually cost the Canadian taxpayer. Now, we did note that this is a very difficult area. It is very difficult to estimate tax expenditures, but one of the things we noted was that it is an important part of what the government needs to work on, because that is what remains as two key elements of the support.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank all of our guests. I very much appreciate that you're here with us.
We've had quite a discussion today about energy efficiency and its impact on sustainable development. There was quite a bit of talk about that also in the first hour.
One of the comments Mr. Sawyer made in his answers to Mr. Sopuck was that we're suffering from a lack of bringing sustainable development technologies to commercialization and it's one of the challenges we face. That brings me to some of the questions I have for Ms. Sharpe, because the work that Sustainable Development Technology Canada does is very much geared to bringing commercial success to the work that's been done as far as sustainable development research and actually bringing that to fruition is concerned.
Minister Kent referred to the government's approach to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector as part of our sector-by-sector approach. SDTC has played a key role in that in a lot of ways. I wanted to talk about one particular project that is very exciting and interesting to me as a member of the transport committee.
We recently completed a study on innovative transportation technologies. One of the things that obviously was talked about quite a bit was electrification and battery power. It was interesting because during the testimony we heard from a lot of witnesses who said, “We're not there yet. We're a long way off from being able to commercialize these products.” Yet shortly after that, in the fall of last year, we actually had an announcement in my riding of Elmwood—Transcona with SDTC and New Flyer Industries about the work that is being done there.
I wonder, Ms. Sharpe, if you could speak about SDTC's involvement in that project, and also some of the great environmental outcomes of that particular project which are readily available today, and also the worldwide impacts that those may have.