I do, and I think that Canada faces a serious challenge. We've set very aggressive targets, which, as you've noted, are unlikely to be met, but we have at our disposal extraordinary resources that could be used to help meet, I would say, broader emission reduction targets at a global level.
In the domestic context, if we're having difficulty, and very recent reports indicate that we are to meet targets that have been set by the Government of Canada for 2030 or 2050, we could be contributing to global efforts to reduce emissions and thereby have a net positive impact around the world if not quite the objective we wanted to achieve within the domestic context.
For instance, we're having conversations with Asian countries that are very interested in bringing in natural gas that could be used to offset higher-emitting resource uses and thereby reduce emissions in those countries. We should be working, I believe, to find ways to ensure that the net emission benefit comes to us and can be counted against our own targets.
Similarly, even within North America, I look at your province, Mr. Bergeron, and I look at the fact that it has one of the most significant hydro assets in North America, which has delivered extraordinary benefit not just to Quebec but, I'd say, to much of northeastern United States. The opportunity to continue to develop those assets in an efficient way often depends on the co-operative development of natural gas assets for the efficient use of energy and for the efficient operation of energy systems.
The concern I have is the suggestion that it is one or the other. I believe that it is an all-of-the-above approach and, similarly, that it's not one or the other in terms of Canadian emission reduction targets and global emission reduction targets. We should be working with our allies around the world to reduce emissions globally in as co-operative a fashion as we possibly can.