Thank you for coming.
On the first page, the pan-Canadian framework, I find it interesting. I don't know anywhere where a definition is low-emitting sources, a definition of clean power...and then the goal is to have non-emitting sources. To me, that sounds like a good political realm, where we don't have to actually close in on anything in particular. It gives us a bit of room.
Actually, I don't know how you get non-emitting. Wind energy cannot be non-emitting. Anything that turns emits something.
I think we're using words that are used in a place to help convince our public that, my gosh, we're doing a really great thing. When I say that, I don't know what the definition is, but I think you should consider cleaning that up and being specific about what we mean in terms of production.
It was brought up that in terms of regional electricity, Canada-United States trade, we're a net exporter. I'm from Ontario. I would like to understand, if you would help me a little, what the cost-revenue balance is from Ontario to our exports to the United States. If you don't have that today, I would like to get it, because you know and I know that under the policies we actually give it away at times. Help me understand a little, then, in terms of the policy of generation of electricity.
In my area, in part of Ontario, we have a lot of green energy under the Green Energy Act.
What kind of duplication is needed in production of electricity for windmills and solar where in the winter we have 10 hours of sunlight and we have intermittent wind? What sort of duplication do we have to have with natural gas, or coal, which we don't have? We haven't built...for 30 years in Ontario.
I wonder if you could give me the cost analysis of what the revenue generation is as compared to the cost of the electricity in Ontario that we ship to the States as a net exporter?