Thank you for your comments.
I will respond in English to be clear.
First of all, if you look on our page 2, amongst our members are the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition and Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Canada. We have these so-called alternate members; they're full members of the Energy Dialogue Group.
The only point we were making about solar, sun, biomass, etc., and the reason you don't see a large number on the chart, is that these represent less than 2% of total supply. It's not to comment on them in any way negatively.
As I mentioned, wind is the fastest growing technology. It was an “alternate” technology, in the sense of an alternate renewable technology, because our core renewable technology is large hydro, for which Canada is well-known—famous—and which represents close to 65% of our electricity system. Our major renewable is large hydro; we believe wind is the fastest growing.
Biomass is substantial. It tends to take place in industrial settings, where it's used as byproduct from forest products and activities, etc.
Do we think that biomass, for instance, or solar is in the near term going to replace the core technologies? No, we do not. Nor do we see anywhere in the world projections of that sort. We think, when we look at what the International Energy Agency is saying and what virtually every global think tank is saying about the energy sources over the next 20, 30, 40 years, whether we like it or not, we're still going to be in a world that's based around a heavy dependence on fossil fuels, with growing contributions from the renewable sector from sources such as wind, and from nuclear, but we will not see a massive transition to biomass or sun, given the cost points of those technologies and the land use implications of some of them.
So do we represent energy for tomorrow? Absolutely. We're committed to representing the views of any and all providers of those services, but realistically speaking we are not going to see a huge transition in our core technologies, in our view, over the next 15 to 20 years.
With respect to passive solar, sure, it's a very effective strategy. It should be part of the energy efficiency strategy. We're very strong supporters of changes to the building codes to facilitate the use of passive solar and other technologies. I think I've made the case that we believe energy efficiency is a strategic theme and that we should be engaged in and committed to it.
You asked a question about importing natural gas via LNG. Our view is that economics and markets determine which sources supply which loads. Given the relatively tight supply situation for natural gas in the near term, we see LNG as likely an important and growing contributor in North America, but equally we need to build our pipelines to the north, we need to access the gas reserves that exist, we need to take advantage of what is available in North America.
Playing only one card is probably dangerous, because nobody can predict when those projects will be delivered. That's why we need the regulatory efficiency and coordination we talk about. So we've taken, quite deliberately, a strategy that says we discriminate against absolutely no option. Every option should be in the basket, and the relative importance of those options within that basket of energy resources should be determined by market realities. That way, we've been able to be inclusive, and frankly, we think this creates the flexibility to get us past unanticipated problems that emerge, with specific solutions.
I'm afraid I had trouble with your last question because my translation device was not working, but I think some of my colleagues picked up on it. Perhaps I will punt that one to them and let them respond.