Just to clarify, what I said was that in 1997, in my estimation and I think that of several other people, we set a target that was completely unrealistic. I meant for the whole Canadian economy. I wasn't talking specifically about the natural gas delivery sector or any particular sector.
On the question about having today's available technology and applying it 100%, again, in the case of the natural gas delivery industry, we're a relatively small part of emissions. Our own use of energy is from pumps and compressors, and energy in our buildings and our fleets. You'd have to ask that question with respect to all those individual things.
We know there's all sorts of technology out there. We could in theory turn, let's say, the residential sector, which uses natural gas, into a much less emission-producing part of the economy if we could tear down all our houses and replace them and put in all the new technology that's available. But I don't see how that's a policy-relevant question, because we know that's not feasible economically or in any other way. Frankly, I don't want my house torn down even though it is not as efficient as it could be.
The individual technologies exist. The point I was trying to make is that we need to find ways to ensure that when we do new things we put the best possible technologies in place. I would argue that in the building sector, in particular, we think about how they come together, because often it isn't about individual technologies; it's about what people in the energy efficiency business call system integration. That is a big challenge. That's why I think we need the kind of strategy that I talked about.