No, that's quite all right. I just wanted some clarification. I think I understand.
The thing I do want to stress, though, is this. I represent a riding in Alberta, which of course has been fixed in the crosshairs certainly with the oil sands. We rely quite heavily in Alberta as well on coal-fired electrical generation. We're transitioning, of course, as much as we can to wind energy. We don't have, of course, any coastal areas, so we don't have the ability to do tidal. We don't have a whole lot of rivers. We only have five major river basins in the province: not all of them are conducive to building hydroelectric. So it's a very difficult position for my province to be in to transition away from a carbon-based economy.
And we haven't had a whole lot of luck in recent years as a nation in negotiating with our largest trading partner, which is the United States. There has been a change, of course, in the United States, and I know you've been asked this question before. But it seems to me that the European Union, through its economic policies, has agreed that there is strength in numbers, and it only makes sense that the European Union countries come together to discuss items such as economic policies, such as environmental policy. It seems to be that the collective wisdom of the 27 countries in the European Union is served best when there is that cooperation and collaboration among those countries.
I know you're reluctant to comment on this, but if that were the case, it would only make sense for Canada to engage its North American partners and its largest economic partners in coming up with similar policies and objectives. Given the fact that we haven't had much cooperation with the previous U.S. administration—there seems to be a new level of cooperation with the recent change in the American administration—would you not suggest, as a friend of Canada, that it would seem to be in our best interest to have as many allies or as many collective trading partners as possible to protect Canada's interests?