We don't accept per capita. We see that as a misleading intensity gauge. It's intensity that should be gauged, not per capita emissions. When you look at true emissions that Saskatchewan produces, based on that reckoning, it's 0.111%. It's very, very small, and within the global context it's minuscule.
I guess I would ask whether we are doing enough, for example, when in some of the areas that I've mentioned we have more or less flat emissions, by NRCan's own reckoning, such as in the oil and gas sector in Canada over the last two decades. How can you cap what is more or less flat?
We have to look at this in a global context because, as I said, if every oil- and gas-producing nation on the planet extracted the way we do here in Canada, global GHGs that are energy produced would instantly fall by 25%. We always look at it in a global context, but not really when we compare our record to those of global jurisdictions. The question becomes this: If Germany is ramping up coal and using natural gas, and Europe is desperate for it, why are we strangling what are now being described perhaps as transition fuels, if you're talking about LNG? Why are we doing that to ourselves if other countries are not?