Whose opinion do you mean? What I've said there is not about oil; I have said that Canada can and should produce more energy. It's not a question of oil. I am not here to represent the oil industry. I represent no industry whatsoever.
What I'm telling you is that you will fundamentally change society in a way that I don't think the economy can stand if policies are brought into place to limit or reduce the quantities of energy that this country consumes. We can alter the gradient of the curve of energy consumption, but I can tell you that on a global basis there is absolutely no doubt the world will consume more energy--vastly more energy--in the future than it does today.
I am certainly not against energy conservation measures in any way, shape, or form, and indeed one of the major programs in our organization is energy conservation, but as I said, that is only one of a combination of magic bullets. To actually reduce energy production and still have and enjoy the society and the social benefits and the health care benefits and everything else that we enjoy today is simply not possible.
We see in Quebec that Hydro-Québec has announced, rightly, an increase in hydro production and an increase in corresponding wind power. That's a perfect combination of, as I said, energy production being increased in a responsible way, and that's what we argue for. Energy production and consumption per se are not bad, and they will not destroy this planet; it is the byproducts of them that will. If we mitigate the byproducts, we can go on increasing energy intensity, enjoy prosperity, and help underdeveloped countries enjoy prosperity too, and that is a fact. It sounds controversial because most people won't acknowledge it, but if you read the blue ribbon panel that was just released, they make exactly the same point: energy intensity is not bad; it is the byproducts of energy that cause the problem.