Dr. Elgie, I might ask you first to comment on this. I'm going in a different direction. The current government has now included upstream GHGs as part of the approval process for new projects, and not just pipelines, but mining and LNG, obviously.
I was recently in China and heard a new term there, which I find quite interesting. They talked about the global “handprint” as opposed to a footprint. You're chuckling, so I'm curious to see what you think about it. It would imply that a country like Canada would get credit when, for example, it sells LNG to China or wood products to China, instead of China using cement, which is highly GHG emissive. This is may be a strange idea, but do you think that Canada should get some credit for helping to reduce the global footprint in place like China when it sells its natural resources abroad?
Have you heard of the handprint idea? Do you think it's something the government should be looking at changing when overhauling the NEB and the regulatory process? If they're looking at upstream GHGs, why not look at the downstream handprint impact Canada has around the world?