I'd like to make a couple of points with regard to that question. I think there is obviously now less collaboration between the U.S. and Canada on environmental policy than there would have been before the election in November. As far as the Canadian perspective goes, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that most environmental policy, particularly that related to climate change, which is where a lot of clean technologies focus now, is happening at the state level rather than at the national government level. To the extent that you want to establish good relationships, I think it would be through working with states such as California, or in the northeast, where these policies are in place.
I do want to make another comment, though, because in that question you also made a specific comparison with China and asked about jobs. I think it's important to keep in mind that when we think about environmental policy, jobs are certainly relevant, but environmental policy isn't going to be the main thing that drives us. The reason that China has been so successful with solar panels, for example, is low labour costs. It's not that they're promoting solar energy in China.
To give you an example from my own work, in a lot of my work I look at patent data. In looking at patents related to wind energy in the United States, I saw that one of the states that has the most patents is South Carolina. It was a surprise when I found this out, so I started digging into the data. The reason for this is that most of these patents are assigned to General Electric. General Electric has a turbine-manufacturing facility in South Carolina. South Carolina has done very little to actually promote renewable energy. The reason the facility is there is that South Carolina has lower taxes and lower labour costs.
To attract jobs, the things that matter for other sectors are the same things that matter for the clean technology sector. Environmental policy isn't going to be enough to motivate that.