Okay.
My other question deals with pages 26 and 27 of Chapter 1 of your report. They deal with emissions trading. From what I understand, you do not consider this system a panacea, but instead an interesting climate change mitigation policy tool. Moreover, I am very happy that you are urging the government to establish this type of mechanism. As you said, the previous government generated considerable delays. The current government does not seem to have the political will necessary to enforce such a mechanism.
On the topic of the emissions trading system, you say that it has made it possible to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. That is true. I am thinking namely of the Canada-U.S. agreement on this issue which, we can say, is a success story. You also say, in point 1.64, that emissions trading is the approach favoured by the European Union, which launched a trading system in 2005 involving 25 countries.
From what I understand, the two mechanisms that you are presenting for emissions trading are part of approaches referred to as territorial. The Canada-US agreement on acid rain was a territorial type of agreement, as is the one in the European Union, which applied to 15 countries at the time and which applies to 25 countries today.
Do you think that this mechanism could prove more effective in a geographic context than in a sector context?