This is a really important question, Mr. Chair, and it was one we were seized of in Rome at the G-7. Obviously, there are a couple of important issues and, therefore, things that I am sure we would benefit as a government from getting participation from the standing committee on.
First of all, in the context of the Ukraine, there's a very obvious over-reliance on supply from Russia. I would submit that this goes to at least ten eastern European countries that are in what I would frame as the 100% club: they're exclusively reliant on them. There are varying degrees of dependency on energy supply from other European countries, certainly western European countries. What the issues raise are energy supply, energy sources, and their implications on issues of national, and I would submit, global security, as we're currently finding out.
The exercise that we went through at that conference was very important. In the first instance, it was to denounce Russia's using energy as a means of coercion and to denounce, obviously, their violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that energy would be used, as I said, as a means of coercion to that end. Beyond that, our discussions focused on an alignment of a number of other key exercises, obviously, energy collaboration; hydrocarbon science-based, non-discriminatory regulation; innovation and responsible energy use; and particularly, renewable energy and the need for alignment on GHGs. I had a bilateral meeting with Secretary Moniz on that, and we identified some key opportunities in these regards.
For us here at home, in the context of the main estimates and the policy platforms that support it, Mr. Chair, we need to understand how responsible resource development can move forward for energy products to get to our tide waters safely for distribution to other markets.
I met with my counterpart from Japan. I'll be attending a conference there later this year, and the number one topic is how far out are we from being able to bring product to their market. The good news is, there's still time, and we would benefit from any work that the committee could give us on these matters.
I think what were satisfied with, with respect to Ukraine, was that there were some short term measures that we could take to help them out, and I've offered the expertise of NRCan for some of those assessment processes. In the context of our other partners, 2017-20 have been identified as medium-term timelines where we could quite possibly get our product to those markets. That's consistent with the goals of, say, British Columbia, for example in LNG, so I'm satisfied that, while there are some pressing things we need to do, we can fit those timelines and focus on, obviously, a dynamic energy supply from Canada to meet new customers' demands.